Richard has withdrawn.
Bryan Sanctuary
Dear All,
Excellent news. Richard has decided to no longer comment on my work. This will remove a tension in this forum since Richard, over his academic career, attacks all who honestly and objectively have issues with Bell. I stand up to him and that is the problem, I call a spade a spade.
The guardian and gatekeeper of Bell has withdrawn for one reason: he cannot find fault in my work, except to guess. He also repeats that he is a mathematician who does not understand QM. I totally agree with him.
Finally, I use math, Theorem-Proof, which is Richard's domain. He does not question my math or theorems.
Bryan
--------------------------------
COMMENTS on Richard's final summary of my work:, if you are interested, otherwise look at the paper.
“The story that Bryan tells by doing these calculations by geometric algebra is not a story of a physical process.”
My comment: which is more physical: Euclidean space or an abstract 2D chiral field? Which is more physical, wave function collapse, or physical rotation? My process is physical, QFT spin lacks geometry, from the paper:
Richard goes on:
“It is a story obtained by visualising algebraic operations in a Clifford algebra. The space in which Bryan draws those pictures is however not the physical space-time in which two photons or two electrons or whatever move toward two detectors.”
My reply:
Figure 1 at the end.
Richard is categorically wrong: the EPR separates into two complementary quaternions. I use the Dirac equation, so of course I use spacetime.
This is what I do:
Yet he looks only at the program and decides that I do the total opposite of what I do, he goes on:
“That is clear from the fact that Bryan doesn’t separate the simulation into two parts, keeping the process generating Alice’s output ignorant of Bob’s input, and vice versa.”
My comment: This is what Richard does not understand: a rotor has two parts, POL and COH, that cannot be separated. A rotor is a quaternion. Alice and Bob are remote, and their states are each described by a compensating rotor, giving the identity.
This is what I do in a nutshell, I use the full definition of spin, physics mostly ignores the bivector $i\sigma$ and keeps only the vector, $\sigma$:
Justo Pastor Lambare
--
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/CALLw9YzkFOr7dV%3DMGqaUwrcPUvUaLpV7gTNtDhE1kmCd7JNdPQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Richard Gill
I do question Bryan’s theorems. His calculations are accurate. He essentially reproduces the standard QM calculation of the EPR-B correlation by rewriting it in GA language.
His new paper is utterly worthless. Bryan is not even able to reproduce Bell’s or Fine’s mathematical findings accurately.
All this has been said many times before.
I don’t have any need to participate in repetitive discussions about this work, but if Bryan tells lies here about me I shall have to respond.
I think the abuse he heaps on me damages his reputation much more than it damages mine.
Richard
Sent from my iPhone
anton vrba
The attached pages describe the two photon decay of the calcium atom which was used as the light source by Freedman & Clauser, as well as Aspect in his work for which he received the Nobel prize. My challenge to Bryan is to explain how his work explains the polarisation entanglement of these two photons, where both of them have exactly the same circularity either right or left circularly polarised, that is the Bell state: |RR⟩ + |LL⟩
Anton
Hi Bryan,Just out of curiosity, I would like to know your opinion about the Nobel Prize to Aspect, Clauser, and Zeilinger. Was it a mistake, or perhaps is it only a problem of interpretation?Justo
El vie, 25 sept 2026 a las 9:24, Bryan Sanctuary (<bryancs...@gmail.com>) escribió:
Dear All,
Excellent news. Richard has decided to no longer comment on my work. This will remove a tension in this forum since Richard, over his academic career, attacks all who honestly and objectively have issues with Bell. I stand up to him and that is the problem, I call a spade a spade.
The guardian and gatekeeper of Bell has withdrawn for one reason: he cannot find fault in my work, except to guess. He also repeats that he is a mathematician who does not understand QM. I totally agree with him.
Finally, I use math, Theorem-Proof, which is Richard's domain. He does not question my math or theorems.
Bryan
--------------------------------
COMMENTS on Richard's final summary of my work:, if you are interested, otherwise look at the paper.
“The story that Bryan tells by doing these calculations by geometric algebra is not a story of a physical process.”
My comment: which is more physical: Euclidean space or an abstract 2D chiral field? Which is more physical, wave function collapse, or physical rotation? My process is physical, QFT spin lacks geometry, from the paper:
Richard goes on:
“It is a story obtained by visualising algebraic operations in a Clifford algebra. The space in which Bryan draws those pictures is however not the physical space-time in which two photons or two electrons or whatever move toward two detectors.”
My reply:
Figure 1 at the end.
Richard is categorically wrong: the EPR separates into two complementary quaternions. I use the Dirac equation, so of course I use spacetime.
This is what I do:
Yet he looks only at the program and decides that I do the total opposite of what I do, he goes on:
“That is clear from the fact that Bryan doesn’t separate the simulation into two parts, keeping the process generating Alice’s output ignorant of Bob’s input , and vice versa.”
My comment: This is what Richard does not understand: a rotor has two parts, POL and COH, that cannot be separated. A rotor is a quaternion. Alice and Bob are remote, and their states are each described by a compensating rotor, giving the identity.
This is what I do in a nutshell, I use the full definition of spin, physics mostly ignores the bivector $i\sigma$ and keeps only the vector, $\sigma$:
Please therefore disregard Richard's statements, they are inaccurate.
I close with a picture of the raw simulation data that gives a curve that shows the symmetric and antisymmetric parts of a rotor, the lemniscate of Gerono on the right shows that POL and COH are related like cos and sin of a circle.If you want to know the difference between SM and BiSM, please see section 5.4. If you want to know how the simulation is done, see section 4.Figure 1
--
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/CALLw9YzkFOr7dV%3DMGqaUwrcPUvUaLpV7gTNtDhE1kmCd7JNdPQ%40mail.gmail.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.
Richard Gill
<image.png>
Richard goes on:
“It is a story obtained by visualising algebraic operations in a Clifford algebra. The space in which Bryan draws those pictures is however not the physical space-time in which two photons or two electrons or whatever move toward two detectors.”
My reply:
<image.png>Figure 1 at the end.
Richard is categorically wrong: the EPR separates into two complementary quaternions. I use the Dirac equation, so of course I use spacetime.
This is what I do:
<image.png>
Yet he looks only at the program and decides that I do the total opposite of what I do, he goes on:
“That is clear from the fact that Bryan doesn’t separate the simulation into two parts, keeping the process generating Alice’s output ignorant of Bob’s input , and vice versa.”
My comment: This is what Richard does not understand: a rotor has two parts, POL and COH, that cannot be separated. A rotor is a quaternion. Alice and Bob are remote, and their states are each described by a compensating rotor, giving the identity.
<image.png>
This is what I do in a nutshell, I use the full definition of spin, physics mostly ignores the bivector $i\sigma$ and keeps only the vector, $\sigma$:
<image.png>
Please therefore disregard Richard's statements, they are inaccurate.
I close with a picture of the raw simulation data that gives a curve that shows the symmetric and antisymmetric parts of a rotor, the lemniscate of Gerono on the right shows that POL and COH are related like cos and sin of a circle.If you want to know the difference between SM and BiSM, please see section 5.4. If you want to know how the simulation is done, see section 4.
<image.png>Figure 1<BiVector1.jpg>
--
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/CALLw9YzkFOr7dV%3DMGqaUwrcPUvUaLpV7gTNtDhE1kmCd7JNdPQ%40mail.gmail.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/CAKAF9vWb-YezzQuYrbSiGR23gc0Fw1y0tc11qduFV8xFdQjLoQ%40mail.gmail.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/em30d693c8-3ad1-48f4-aca6-cf9ba9e76fd6%40gmail.com.
<Pages-from-Quantum-Metrology,-Imaging,-and-Communication-(David-S.-Simon,-Gregg-Jaeger-etc.).pdf>
Bryan Sanctuary
Bryan Sanctuary
--
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/2FB74A36-B745-484D-99C4-5297B850C168%40gmail.com.