Debate on Bell: Sanctuary versus Gill
Bryan Sanctuary
Debate on Bell: Sanctuary versus Gill
The Topic
Disproof or not of Bell’s theorem, which Bell stated as:
“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.”
Clarification:
Sanctuary does not reject Bell’s Inequalities which are accepted here as correct.
CHSH is less than or equal to 2
Rules:
Sanctuary first leads Gill through an objective process to show that spin has two channels that can produce EPR coincidences. Bell used only one channel. The second channel disproves Bell’s theorem thereby restoring local reality to physics.
At that initial stage, Gill responds only to the objective steps and does not go out of scope with subjective or ontological arguments. He only agrees or not with the mathematical steps which are not subjective and can only be either right or wrong, so yes or no.
When Sanctuary has finished, Gill will lead, giving his arguments that counter the two channels. Sanctuary responds. The debate continues as to whether Bell’s theorem stands or not.
We assume that the audience knows the topic, so pedagogy is avoided.
I ask that others not interject in this thread. I have started a second thread, Debate of Bell: comments. This will keep the debate focused between us.
The debaters from Sanctuary’s perspective
Gill is a well-known and respected mathematician in probability theory with considerable credibility. Gill is the gatekeeper of Bell. He argues against anyone who questions Bell’s work. He is prone to discrediting and dismissing Bell dissenters without substance, rather than engaging.
Sanctuary is a theoretical chemist with a background in spin theory, with little credibility. Richard characterizes him as a quantum crackpot. Sanctuary’s main interest is not Bell’s work but rather developing the Bivector SM to replace the SM.
Motivation and Background
On this forum bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com
recent acrimonious exchanges were initiated by Fred Diether III, who presented
a disproof of Bell’s theorem based upon the past 20 years of Joy Christian’s
work. Diether relentlessly asserted “Bell was wrong bigtime” and bullied, with
ad hominem remarks, anyone who attempted to engage. This led to loss in membership
and threatened the existence of the group. Sanctuary responded with a short
paper showing that Diether and Christian’s method is fundamentally flawed, and
that Diether had tacitly included non-locality.
In that three-page paper, the two-channel mechanism was clearly identified, to which Gill did not counter objectively. While this silenced Diether, Gill remarked that Sanctuary’s math was substandard and ridiculed his approach to add the two channels. Gill asserted without concrete arguments that the two channels are already in Bell’s work, saying it is “obvious” the correlations should be averaged not added.
Sanctuary used Bell’s 64 paper to explicitly show the second channel was missed by Bell and including it disproves his theorem.
These are attached as pdfs:
· Diether’s paper (jqis_1300492);
· Diether’s errors;
· Bell’s 64 paper
· Two-channel paper.
The last paper forms the basis that supports my view for the Debate.
Additionally, Sanctuary asserts that the bivector approach is consistent with experiment. At this stage the arguments are theoretical. Experimental conformities are reserved for future debates.
The Outcome
If Sanctuary’s two channel theory is accepted, then Gill concedes publicly that Bell’s theorem is disproven.
If Gill’s assertion that only one channel exists is accepted, Sanctuary concedes publicly that Bell’s theorem is not disproven.
If the topic is not resolved and ends in a stalemate, then each will write a paragraph that defends their position and reasons to reject the other’s arguments. Subjective conclusions should be supported by logic, rather than relying on institutional bias.
The Stakes and some consequences
With Bell’s theorem repudiated, from Sanctuary’s perspective, the stakes are enormous, far reaching and paradigm shifting.
· Nature becomes local, real and deterministic
· Dirac’s near 100-year-old antimatter-matter solution is replaced by the bivector solution.
· The SM of physics is replaced by the Bivector Standard Model, BiSM.
· Spin has a classical origin as a bivector.
· Spin is not a chiral vector in a 2D Hilbert space, it is a real 2D structure, a classical rotor, embedded in spacetime.
· Fermions are not fundamental. Fermions are the polarized blades of bivectors.
· Spin, as a classical rotor, has a well-defined quantum limit of a double helix of mass.
· Spin need not be postulated. In isotropy, it is massless and EM inert. In a polarizing field, its blades are forced apart, the polarization, chirality and charge emerge naturally.
· Pauli matrices do not define quantum spin but rather describe the classical chirality of bivector blades.
· Point particle electron is replaced by a bivector structure. Structure determines function. The bivector structure hosts energy that can be quantized.
· QFT is replaced by Geometric Algebra.
· Particles are not excitations on a ubiquitous chiral field with local symmetry maintained gauge bosons
· Neutrinos do not exist and billions spent on their detection was wasted.
· Parity is not violated.
· Superposition of spin states is replaced by rotation and projection of real objects in spacetime.
· Teleportation, and Quantum information must henceforth reject the premise of Bell’s theorem.
· Quantum Computing cannot use qubits since they cannot physically exist. Teleportation is replaced by the internal clock of the bivector with origin from the ZBW.
· Billions of past research funds into non-locality will have been misdirected.
· Companies involved in applications of quantum information based on Bell’s theorem, will fail.
· Tens of thousands of research papers that use Bell’s Theorem are ill based.
· Thousands of research projects must end.
· No new research funds should henceforth be committed to non-local phenomena.
· The 2022 Nobel prize in physics was given for the wrong reason
· The EPR paradox is resolved and quantum weirdness explained.
· The ontology of the foundations is changed.
In short, disproof of Bell’s theorem will usher in a paradigm shift. It changes the ontology established in 1925 and persisted until now.
Some persons copied
For academic transparency, I copy this to some people who are impacted and I invite them to follow the debate. These include members not in this group:
· Sabine Hossenfelder: who may wish to report on the debate from her YouTube channel
· The 2022 Nobel Prize winners
· The current chair of the Nobel Prize committee on physics
· Lee Smolin influential in the Perimeter Institute dedicated to the foundations of physics
· Charles Bennett, lead author of the 1993 paper on teleportation
· Nicolas Gisin, advocate of teleportation and quantum cryptography
· Other members of the academic community involved in the foundations.
Invitation to Gill
I invite Gill to respond and state his position. I invite him to give his comments and suggestions on the above debate and agree to debate them according to our agreed rules. I ask him not to start the debate. I go first; he then follows.
With the agreement by both of us, then the debate can begin.
Nature follows logic
Nature is described by mathematics; mathematics goes beyond Nature. We must know how to distinguish that Infamous Boundary articulated by David Wick: https://philpapers.org/rec/WICTIB
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
-Robert Frost.
Bryan Sanctuary
January 16, 2026
Fred Diether
Richard Gill
Mark Hadley
--
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/CALLw9YzrOD_61uhhy2fU3ZjXdrhA6BM-fphSAih3hi%2BKcXN78w%40mail.gmail.com.
anton vrba
Your proposed debate conflates two distinct issues that must be kept separate.
Bell’s theorem is not an ontological statement.
It is a theorem about the structure of probability models for scalar measurement outcomes under locality (factorization) and statistical independence. Bell is explicitly agnostic about ontology: local or global hidden variables, fields, particles, bivectors, or anything else are all allowed provided they define a Kolmogorov probability space for detector outcomes. Changing the ontology does not alter the theorem.
Accordingly, introducing a second “spin channel,” a bivector ontology, or a BiSM framework does not refute Bell. It simply moves outside the domain of the theorem. That is not a disproof; it is a category change. Bell remains mathematically intact.
If one wishes to replace the Standard Model or its foundations, that is a separate—and much larger—enterprise. Historically and conceptually, such an enterprise must pass through Maxwell theory and the operational foundations of measurement, as already emphasized by Poincaré in 1906: (see below) invariance precedes ontology, and geometry is fixed by how measurements are defined, not by postulated internal structures.
Your program does not engage this level. It replaces quantum formalism with a new ontology while leaving untouched the operational and probabilistic framework to which Bell applies. That is why debates framed as “Sanctuary versus Bell” or “Sanctuary versus Gill” generate heat but no resolution.
In short:
Changing fundamental assumptions does not invalidate Bell.
Bell is agnostic to BiSM versus SM.
A genuine paradigm shift would have to re-derive measurement, locality, and probability from the ground up—starting with Maxwell, not bypassing him.
For these reasons, I do not see the proposed debate format as capable of resolving the issue it claims to address.
Regards,
Anton
Mark Hadley
--
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/embf778b1e-4c87-42d1-aa3d-224daa0ad061%40c086a822.com.
anton vrba
Thank you, Mark — you are right, and I realized that shortly after sending my previous reply.
It became clear to me once I read Richard post with the diagram (three inputs, three outputs) and that Bell is agnostic to the internal structure of the inputs. Multiple “channels” can always be absorbed into a single local hidden variable without leaving the scope of Bell’s theorem. So the channel count itself is not the issue.
What I am now wondering is whether Bryan may be conflating two distinct notions:
a local hidden variable in Bell’s sense, versus
a single global geometric hidden variable with internal structure that is not probabilistic in the Kolmogorov sense.
which makes clear, the same internal object feeds both outcomes. This is a single global structure with multiple contextual projections, not independent local random variables in Bell’s sense.
If the latter is what is intended, then the presentation as a “disproof of Bell” is, in my view, misleading. Bell remains intact. However, framed differently, the work could be read as something else entirely: a proposal that replaces probabilistic description with causal geometric structure, while reproducing the observed correlations.
From that point of view, the claim would not be “Bell is wrong,” but rather:
here is a deterministic, possibly global, geometric model that reproduces Bell-test statistics without invoking nonlocal influences in spacetime.
That would shift the discussion away from Bell’s theorem itself and toward the interpretation of quantum mechanics (e.g. Copenhagen vs causal/geometric alternatives), where Bell is explicitly agnostic.
I offer this as a constructive reframing, not as a dismissal.
Regards,
Anton
