Bell's biggest mistake continued

[Fred Diether]

The other thread seems to be whacked out because maybe it is too long.

Mark said, "Fred,

In the EPR setup which is what Bells is about, you ALWAYS have two directions. One detector in each arm of the experiment.

You can of course point both detectors in the same direction. That is a special case."

A can only have one direction at a time.  Same for B.  You're lost in all of this.

[Mark Hadley]

Correct.

The Bell 64 paper is clearly too difficult for you. And you don't have a basic understanding of the set up.

Try reading books and looking on the internet e.g. Wikipedia. Look for EPR, bI CHSH and follow the links.

Look for the diagrams. It's very hard to grasp the equations without a picture in your head.

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/26220161-9113-47cd-bda0-568c7bf6d4d2n%40googlegroups.com.

[Fred Diether]

Mark, clearly you are the one that needs to hit the books.  You are completely lost and clueless.  And you are not very good at math applied to physics.  Time for you to get real.

If you can't do the math, then get off the thread.

[Mark Hadley]

Fred,

I told you that you were correct.

A and B can only point one direction at a time.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/df17fd02-050b-4f00-9e2c-51c255f2183en%40googlegroups.com.

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

Well, Fred has proved to everyone he is a rude ignorant

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAN%3D2%2Bo0CiyJ0FaCi3keECRGV9wxDbd%3DOkhThrK0O4mzhUoEgAw%40mail.gmail.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

[Fred Diether]

At least I don't propagate nonsense like you.  You guys can continue to delude yourself but the inequality is only good for a = b = c.  Very easy to see if you know how to do math and physics.  Time to get real folks.

[Mark Hadley]

What about eq14

You called it nonsense before.

I explained it

Do you understand it now?

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/77788d93-c46c-4d15-a299-5444fb837ba4n%40googlegroups.com.

[Fred Diether]

Richard said, " Writing down A(a,lambda) times A(c,lambda) does not imply “having both directions at the same time”.

It does not imply even imagining "having both directions at the same time”.

If a and c are directions in the unit circle I can write down "cos(a - c)” even if directions “a” and “c” are chosen independently by Alice and Bob at two distant locations at the same time.

A(., .) is a function. It is a computer program. Given two inputs it delivers an output.

You can take two computer programs like this, execute them both on whatever inputs you like, and multiply the results."

Nope, it's physics and we know you don't know physics.  Physics is being modelled with math.  Sure, it is easy to model fantasies on a computer.

[Mark Hadley]

Most of what you say there is correct, possibly all of it. Richard is correct where you quote him.

I'm not sure what you are claiming? Or the point if this comment.

You do realise that cos (a-c) is a nonlocal function?

And do you accept that eq14 is correct and withdraw your claim that it is "nonsense"

Cheers

Mark 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/c3ae7981-2a2e-4fa2-a733-e6699609caden%40googlegroups.com.

[Fred Diether]

" You do realise that cos (a-c) is a nonlocal function?"

How do you know?  Is the location of "a" and "c" specified?  Are they actual physical vectors or fantasies?  You better hit the physics books.

[Mark Hadley]

Yes, that's the setup. It's fundamental to an EPR type experiment. That's what the Bell paper is about. Two arms of the experiment with space like separation. The two angles are the angles in each arm.

As I said before, you are commenting on a research paper without knowing or understanding the background. It's very hard to handle a paper written for research scientists without having knowledge about the research field.

As I suggested, read a good book or study web pages to understand the context and then look at the CSHS derivations.

Cheers

Mark

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/01c96c62-a46f-4658-bec0-381d879c4fffn%40googlegroups.com.

[Fred Diether]

And... more moronic nonsense from clueless Mark.

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

Mark knows what he is talking about.

Fred, on the other hand, appears to be a confused moron.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/6b46134f-876d-452c-b8ed-d7c7e7394b89n%40googlegroups.com.

[Richard Gill]

Fred appears to me to be simply trolling, I think he should leave the group.

Sent from my iPad

On 15 Oct 2025, at 07:14, 'Jan-Åke Larsson' via Bell inequalities and quantum foundations <Bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/03407a62-89ff-43d1-8d56-af77a985c372%40liu.se.

[Fred Diether]

Well, that is exactly typical Bell fanatic behavior when you get challenged and don't have good answers. 

The inequality is only good for a = b = c.  Why do you think they went to CHSH?  Duh... because it is no good.

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

You mean, mathematically proving without a doubt you are wrong and then pointing out that you have made no argument whatsoever for your claim?

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/3b3d8615-e1f4-4aad-a559-98a0ead5492cn%40googlegroups.com.

[Fred Diether]

Of course that is NOT what I mean as anyone can plainly see.  And of course Richard didn't post his response on the group; just to me via email.  I wonder why?  LOL!

You guys are so predictable and of course I would never expect you to admit you are wrong.

[Mark Hadley]

Fred,

You are not intellectually or emotionally capable of engaging in a discussion about foundations of QM or BI

You lack the basic understanding that is required. And you seem to lack the character to admit you are ignorant, wrong, and struggling to understand your teachers.

Don't give up though, if you are interested then go back a few steps and understand the essential building blocks and concepts that underly BI 

Bells paper is correct and perfectly valid. CHSH improved on clarity, simplicity and usefulness - but it was not the breakthrough that Bell 64 was.

I suggest with withdraw from the forum and return when you are more mature.

Cheers

Mark

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/427d2ab8-359d-4a89-8f7b-c2753f593e85n%40googlegroups.com.

[Fred Diether]

And... we see that Mark is still stuck on dense.  Hit the books, you might understand where Bell screwed up.  Though, I doubt very much you ever will.

[anton vrba]

Fred,

I suggest you study Freedman’s 1972 Ph.D. thesis, “Experimental Test of Local Hidden-Variable Theories” (available here.) It forms the foundation for the subsequent paper by Freedman and Clauser with the same title in Physical Review Letters journal.

This thesis remains, in my opinion, one of the best resources for understanding entanglement, Bell’s theorem, and the experimental methods used to test these concepts. Freedman’s original experiment — and every subsequent one — convincingly demonstrates the non-existence of local hidden variables. However, it does not exclude the possibility of a global hidden variable.

A debate contrasting probabilistic (Bohr) and deterministic (eg. de Broglie–Bohm) interpretations would, I believe, be far more intellectually fruitful — since the question of which of these two reflects physical reality remains unresolved.

Kind regards,
Anton L. Vrba

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

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

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

Date 10/15/2025 10:19:44 PM

Subject Re: [Bell_quantum_foundations] Bell's biggest mistake continued

[Fred Diether]

I like this paper better,

"Bell’s theorem without inequalities"

https://pubs.aip.org/aapt/ajp/article-abstract/58/12/1131/1053607/Bell-s-theorem-without-inequalities?redirectedFrom=fulltext

The "GHZ" theorem.  I wonder if Mark can understand it.

Ok, let's get back to some physics.  Here is what Richard said in the email,  "That’s your claim and it has been shown to be incorrect. It seems you can’t follow simple mathematical arguments. Physicists develop mathematical models and mathematicians can analyse them just as well (if not better) than physicists. Bell put forward a mathematical formalisation of the concept of local realism in the context of an EPR-B experiment. You may dislike his formalisation. But given the formalisation, you just have to follow math rules when investigating consequences of the model. If you dislike the model (two functions A and B of variables a, b and lambda etc) tell us what you think is wrong with it."

The model is OK but I suspect lambda is not needed.  Again, my claim is that the "inequality" is only good for a = b = c.  Let's review it.

eq. (14)

We know here that a = b because Bell tells us that right before eq. (13) and he uses a modified (13) for substitution in eq. (2) to get (14).  And since a = b, the right hand side of the equation is equal to -1.

Does everyone agree with that? 

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

No. Bell says: "P can reach -1 at a=b only if A(a,lambda) = -B(a,lambda)"

He does not say "Let us assume that a=b". This is also never used in Bell's proof.

--
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/baf1fb6b-22b0-4484-9491-27223962fa19n%40googlegroups.com.

[Fred Diether]

eq. (13)

Sure looks like a = b in eq. (13).  Sorry, what I said was wrong.  It is actually a = b in the equation.

Do you now agree with what I said about eq. (14)?

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

No, eq. (13) only contains a as directional parameter.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/2a72ecb0-90cb-41c0-aecd-33ed447ac68an%40googlegroups.com.

[Fred Diether]

Hmm...  What do you think -B(a, lambda) means.  It means that b is in the same direction as a so a = b.  It is pretty simple math and physics.  No wonder you don't see Bell's mistake.

[Mark Hadley]

Fred,

Jan is correct.

As I said before you are not emotionally or intellectually equipped to study this paper. Or to engage with this forum. 

These are straightforward mathematical arguments. Using general functions but inferring something from special cases.

Mark

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/bddf75a9-2bdb-4936-b478-a1fdd78a6c79n%40googlegroups.com.

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

No, b is literally never mentioned in eqn (13). Let me rephrase the whole sentence:

"If the two measurement devices have the same direction setting a, the correlation P(a,a) can equal -1 only if A(a,lambda) = -B(a,lambda)."

Equation (14) is about the case when a is not equal to b.

Multivariate calculus must have been sheer terror to you, all these different coordinates all over the place

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/bddf75a9-2bdb-4936-b478-a1fdd78a6c79n%40googlegroups.com.

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Fred,

The article you like contains many mistakes, including mathematical mistakes. I view this article as evidence of the degradation of physical thinking in the article [1].

[1] A.V. Nikulov, Physical Thinking and the GHZ Theorem. Found. Phys. 53, 51 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-023-00693-y .

With best wishes,

Alexey

чт, 16 окт. 2025 г. в 19:13, Fred Diether <fredi...@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/baf1fb6b-22b0-4484-9491-27223962fa19n%40googlegroups.com.

[Fred Diether]

Ok, Larsson is now going to resort to some kind of redirection nonsense since he doesn't seem to understand simple math and physics.  You're out of the discussion.

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

Fred has no clue

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/d2730563-d99b-4e88-a4b2-805b671efef7n%40googlegroups.com.

[Mark Hadley]

And he has no clue that he has no clue

And seems to think rudeness can mask his ignorance - it can't.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/c2651e24-ce79-410a-b103-67103230a4e4%40liu.se.

[Fred Diether]

Ok, I don't know what the heck I was thinking that Bell fanatics would be somewhat honest.  Boy, I was wrong about that. LOL!

So, we will continue for the benefit of lurkers that might be seeing this.  I would imagine some of them will see through the nonsense and lies of the fanatics.  Some of them previously agreed that the right side of eq. (14) is -1 since a = b.  But now they lie about that.  First a little correction,

eq. (13)

It is here that we can see a = b then Bell uses a modified (13) to substitute in (14).

Then we have,

no equation numbers in Bell

Then it is easy to see, Bell made the same kind of substitution for P(a, c).  So, at this point a = b = c.  That makes the RHS zero.  IOW, it's a mess.  :-)  One more step to go.

[Mark Hadley]

It's been explained to you several times. 

If you disagree with the explanations - you are wrong.

If you don't understand the explanations - you are stupid.

Explaining it again won't make any difference.

--
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/9677820e-2d76-4fac-8ad2-9b122b587cccn%40googlegroups.com.

[Fred Diether]

Next we have,

And we can easily see that the integrand in the top equation is still zero since a = b = c.  And then in the resulting inequality we have,

1 - 1 >= 0

So, it is definitely true that the inequality is good for a = b = c.

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

Fred has now earned a new badge: auto-delete

The mathematical abilities of some people here is simply appalling.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAN%3D2%2Bo1_qosKDhE9JaNa%2BtS_v7Q1gsuBEpC8P47N5trtwPt-Zw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Richard Gill]

No Fred, it means “what the outcome at Bob’s measuring station would have been, had Bob used setting an and the hidden variable taken the value lambda”. It does not mean that in the actual experiment b is the same direction as a. In the actual experiment Alice and Bob actually keep using different setting and lambda will be different every time.

It is indeed very simple math. It is math in a make believe world. It is not the real world. Physics is irrelevant.

Bell gets an inequality, then a brilluantvexperimentalist does an experiment and finds the inequality is violated. The smart physicist concludes “that model - the model of Bell - does not describe my real world”.

Sent from my iPad

On 16 Oct 2025, at 18:29, Fred Diether <fredi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hmm...  What do you think -B(a, lambda) means.  It means that b is in the same direction as a so a = b.  It is pretty simple math and physics.  No wonder you don't see Bell's mistake.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/bddf75a9-2bdb-4936-b478-a1fdd78a6c79n%40googlegroups.com.

[Richard Gill]

You’re funny, Fred!

Sent from my iPhone

On 16 Oct 2025, at 20:31, Fred Diether <fredi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Ok, Larsson is now going to resort to some kind of redirection nonsense since he doesn't seem to understand simple math and physics.  You're out of the discussion.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/d2730563-d99b-4e88-a4b2-805b671efef7n%40googlegroups.com.

[Richard Gill]

Your mind is in a mess Fred!

I am not sure whether to laugh or cry.

Sent from my iPhone

On 16 Oct 2025, at 22:52, Fred Diether <fredi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Ok, I don't know what the heck I was thinking that Bell fanatics would be somewhat honest.  Boy, I was wrong about that. LOL!

So, we will continue for the benefit of lurkers that might be seeing this.  I would imagine some of them will see through the nonsense and lies of the fanatics.  Some of them previously agreed that the right side of eq. (14) is -1 since a = b.  But now they lie about that.  First a little correction,

<bell13.jpg>

eq. (13)

It is here that we can see a = b then Bell uses a modified (13) to substitute in (14).

Then we have,

--
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/9677820e-2d76-4fac-8ad2-9b122b587cccn%40googlegroups.com.

<bell14a.jpg>

<bell13.jpg>

[Fred Diether]

Ok, for the further benefit of lurkers we know that Bell's theorem has been disproven, so there has to be something wrong with the original derivation of the inequality.

It looks like we found it!  So, where to go to from here?  Is the inequality good for a = b = - c?

1 + 1 >= | - 1 -1 |

2 >= 2

So, it looks like it is good for that also.

[Fred Diether]

No wonder Richard doesn't see Bell's mistake.  -B(a, lambda) means simply that b = a.  And when b = a, the result will be the opposite of A(a, lambda).  Since you all seem to be struggling with simple math, if A is +1 then B will be -1; if A is -1 then B will be +1.

[Mark Hadley]

Richard is correct, though his language is a bit different to mine.

You really need to understand and fully appreciate Einstein's original EPR thought experiment. Before tackling bell.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/6c8d4b18-a2a6-4ba3-8426-cf60cb3b7bdfn%40googlegroups.com.

[Fred Diether]

Oops, Mark has the same reading comprehension problem that Richard has.

[Richard Gill]

You get all mixed up, Fred, because you omit the immediate context. You never learnt logic, you don’t use the symbols “for all”, and “there exists”. (Bell doesn’t either, he assumes the reader has enough intelligence to insert them herself).

The mathematical expression “A(a, lambda) = -B(a, lambda)” needs to be accompanied by the words “for all directions a and all values of the HV lambda”. It tells us that the function “B” is identical to the negative of the function “A”.

Sent from my iPad

On 18 Oct 2025, at 01:17, Fred Diether <fredi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Oops, Mark has the same reading comprehension problem that Richard has.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/03b6d491-231e-48db-b5b3-211dd66e8fc0n%40googlegroups.com.

<bell13.jpg>

[Fred Diether]

LOL!  I see that you are still having reading comprehension problems.  I don't really care if you want to continue to delude yourself but for lurkers you are missing something important involved in the LOGIC.  The fact that it is only for sure TRUE when b = a.  We don't know if it is true for b not equal to a.  Bell's mistake.

[Fred Diether]

It appears more explanation is needed for this equation.  Seems like people think that it implies

A(a, lambda) = - B(b, lambda)

But that expression is only true when ____?

[Fred Diether]

Man, a bunch of lightweights in this group that can't even answer a simple question.  :-)

Anyways, sorry Bell fans,  there is a new disproof of Bell's theorem in town.  Here is a plot from the simulation for it,

Another exact match!  If anyone is interested, I will send a PDF of the simulation.

[Fred Diether]

Ok, the attachment was too large.  Let's try this one.

On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 9:22 AM Fred Diether <fredi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Ok,  John Reed and Richard asked to see the simulation code via email.  John has Mathematica so I sent him the notebook file.  If anyone else has Mathematica and wants the notebook file, let me know.  I'll see if I can attach the PDF of it here.

On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 2:59 AM Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com> wrote:

I’d be interested to see your code, Fred.

On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 9:22 AM Fred Diether <fredi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Ok,  John Reed and Richard asked to see the simulation code via email.  John has Mathematica so I sent him the notebook file.  If anyone else has Mathematica and wants the notebook file, let me know.  I'll see if I can attach the PDF of it here.

On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 2:59 AM Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com> wrote:

I’d be interested to see your code, Fred.

Sent from my iPad

On 29 Oct 2025, at 20:10, Fred Diether <fredi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Man, a bunch of lightweights in this group that can't even answer a simple question.  :-)

Anyways, sorry Bell fans,  there is a new disproof of Bell's theorem in town.  Here is a plot from the simulation for it,

--
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/ec7cf92d-f112-4030-b4d5-ff296fa05d4cn%40googlegroups.com.

<expon2.jpg>

[Fred Diether]

Ok, let's try this for the larger file,

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1H4rIzAmpbNLW8H0VPjmZkaiblq1S-7Oy/view?usp=sharing

Forgot that I could just put it up on Google Drive.

[Mark Hadley]

Fred,

You are not intellectually capable of handling this material.

Know, understand, and accept, the truth about BI or CSHS then more forward with understanding the implications 

To be clear about the current status.

The derivation of BI is proven.

BI is violated ( disproven in a sense) by quantum theory predictions.

BI is violated by experiment.

The interesting question is how we reconcile that.

Cheers 

Mark

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/5b4023b3-0a8d-40e7-9d7f-96b10eedc426n%40googlegroups.com.

[Fred Diether]

Hmm... Mark couldn't answer a simple question either.  Still stuck on dense I guess.  Absolutely no chance he will understand the Mathematica simulation.  Maybe he could tell us what s represents.

[Fred Diether]

Oops, forgot to turn on access.  Richard, you and everyone should be able to access it now.  The only difference from what I sent you is that it has 100,000 trials instead of 40,000l

[Fred Diether]

Richard said in an email, " Yes, I got it now.

I think the real part of the product of two complex numbers does not have to equal the product of their real parts. So you do not actually multiply the two outcomes +/- 1"

Yes, just doing a product calculation of A and B.  It is a prediction of -a.b using classical means for the EPR-Bohm scenario.  The simulation is the most simple way of predicting -a.b that I have ever seen.  Bell was wrong obviously.

[Richard Gill]

Fred, I disagree. You sketch a classical (LHV) model for the measurement outcomes But you do not calculate within classical physics. You are mixing up quantum and classical in an original bur unjustifiable way.

The product of two real parts is (typically) not the real part of the product.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/40228343-d573-457f-a2f0-b2093a7a14c2n%40googlegroups.com.

[Fred Diether]

LOL!  Richard, of course everyone would expect you to disagree.  I'm not sure what you see that is "quantum" in the calculation.  Complex numbers have been around way before they were used in QM.  In fact, QM can be done without complex numbers.  If that is what you mean.

I have no idea what this means, "The product of two real parts is (typically) not the real part of the product."  Got an example?

[Mark Hadley]

Yes Fred,

Your message just confirms that you need to go back and learn high school algebra.

You might then understand how to multiply complex numbers and follow Bells algebra. There is no hope for you otherwise.

Mark

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/9a01d7b9-f1f4-4166-bff0-b0065e581d47n%40googlegroups.com.

[Fred Diether]

Ok, that is two question Mark can't seem to answer.  Still in dense mode.

[Fred Diether]

Oh, I guess you were just badly restating, " I think the real part of the product of two complex numbers does not have to equal the product of their real parts."

Duh, that is pretty obvious.  One thing that is mysterious about this -a.b prediction is why A or B has to be a complex conjugate.  Using geometric algebra or quaternions is more symmetric but not as simple as this.

Anyways, Bell was wrong both ways.

[Richard Gill]

Yes, Fred, it is obvious, and it is the mistake in your disproof of Bell’s theorem.

Sent from my iPhone

On 31 Oct 2025, at 21:43, Fred Diether <fredi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Oh, I guess you were just badly restating, " I think the real part of the product of two complex numbers does not have to equal the product of their real parts."

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/ff11091e-b693-4e00-8151-c7dd2c5c0554n%40googlegroups.com.

[Fred Diether]

LOL!  I think you mean you WISH it was a mistake.  Anyone can claim a mistake without explaining why.  IOW, you have made a mistake in thinking Bell's theorem is true.  But here we have proof in the simulation that you are mistaken.  But we already know you will never admit to it.  So, your claims are useless.

[Fred Diether]

Ok, I made the simulation more symmetrical by adding a hidden variable.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N4jiBKgonePQg551_4CBOxnoSXNJqlaP/view?usp=sharing

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Hello all,

I have been following the exchange between Fred and others for sometime.  Since I too did a simulation of the violation of BI, I thought I would have a look to see how Fred did it, and I was surprised at what I found.   The ±1 results you are all talking about are never used. The −cos curve is obtained by multiplying two quaternions and then taking the real part.  This forces −cosθ. This means the correlation Fred finds is assumed, not derived. Therefore, it is not an EPR simulation of correlation because it does not arise from the binary outcomes.

At least that is my reading of it, and thought it might add to the discussion,  

Bryan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/e8d9bd79-ede4-4991-bf03-1c56e3aa7096n%40googlegroups.com.

[Fred Diether]

I can see BS is still clueless as there are no quaternions in the simulation.  And... QM cannot predict -a.b using the +/- 1 outcomes.