The Gill–Sanctuary wager; a proposed resolution

[antonvrba]

There have been 216 emails on this subject in roughly two weeks over and above the thousands over the last 4 years, yet the Gill–Sanctuary wager remains unresolved.

I therefore asked ChatGPT for an independent assessment:

https://chatgpt.com/share/6a52a678-8234-83ed-a581-61ca91b67e44

The exchange is also reproduced in the attached PDF.

Bryan argues that publication of his papers by MDPI constitutes sufficient peer acceptance for him to have won. The AI assessment was:

“Sanctuary cannot properly be declared the winner solely on the basis of MDPI publication and anonymous peer review. At most, those publications satisfy the submission or publication condition.”

I also asked ChatGPT to examine Bryan’s article, “Spin Helicity and the Disproof of Bell’s Theorem”, together with the published comment and his reply. It concluded:

“Sanctuary has not conceded that his bivector spin theory is wholly wrong, but he has expressly conceded that Bell’s theorem is mathematically valid and that his model lies outside its assumptions. This abandons the central claim that his model is a counter example disproving Bell’s theorem.”

This is the essential distinction. The wager was not a judgement on the entire foundational quantum theory that Bryan advocates; it concerned the specific claim that his model disproved Bell’s theorem. Conceding the wager would therefore not require Bryan to abandon his bivector theory. It would mean only accepting that the advertised disproof of Bell’s theorem was not achieved. Richard’s expertise is directly relevant to the mathematical and statistical issues, while the broader physical merits of Bryan’s theory may still be debated separately.

Bryan, I therefore urge you to accept Richard’s  9 July 2026: offer:

“Bryan, just admit that you lost. I don’t insist that you pay. Your debt can be cancelled. Money is not important; honour is.”

Accepting this would end the dispute without financial penalty and allow the group to return to substantive scientific discussion.

Regards
Anton

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Anton,

Did you tell AI that Richard and I canceled the bet?. I sent an email to Richard and we agreed to cancel it long ago.  I am not going to spend any time looking for it.  

However, I will ask Richard:  We canceled the bet, I sent you an email.  Please confirm to all.  If you lie, I will then be more motivated to look for the email.  So I suggest you tell the truth.

Bryan

--
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/90d41d3a-17a3-4b96-9475-81f606f8fd01n%40googlegroups.com.

[antonvrba]

Bryan, The power of AI amazes me, I never tell anything to AI, I ask AI if the bet was cancelled.

The bet was mutually cancelled in writing on 12–13 March 2024, 

see  https://groups.google.com/g/Bell_quantum_foundations/c/Yi6h7xm21Tc/m/rM2dh3h4AAAJ 

so neither party can claim a debt or a formal win. (@Bryan, before you go on a trumpeting, read all of the below)

On 21 August 2024 Bryan triumphantly announced his MDPI paper : Spin Helicity and the disproof of Bell Theorem

https://groups.google.com/g/Bell_quantum_foundations/c/Yi6h7xm21Tc/m/qQ4vd3MWAgAJ

and Bryan included the MDPI referee enthusiastic comment ("I cannot see faults") but the article has produced zero uptake in the two years since, which is itself informative given how loudly a genuine Bell counterexample would reverberate. The huge pushback from the Google group was justified including Richard's remark.

On 21 May 2026, Bryan baits Richard: " Hey Richard wanna bet again?"

https://groups.google.com/g/bell_quantum_foundations/c/lzqfWjTSliI/m/fgNiTIxQBgAJ

to which Richard replies " My bet is still open. Go ahead and see if you can win it. You made another bet with me. I won but you wouldn’t pay."

Bryan  in June 2026  quietly swapped "disproof" for "different model class" 

https://www.mdpi.com/2624-960X/8/3/57

but he leaves the original article standing and lets the headline claim continue circulating uncorrected.  The honest consequence would be a corrigendum or retraction of the "disproof" framing, since the published title now asserts something its own author has disclaimed in the same journal.  

Regardless of the monetary status of the bet, the scientific claim underlying the bet was conceded by Bryan in June 2026 when he accepted Bell's validity and placed his model outside the theorem's scope; and at no point did the framework achieve the peer acceptance that constituted the bet's success criterion. Richard was substantively right, procedurally released, and occasionally revisionist about the cancellation; Bryan was procedurally released, substantively wrong on the claim as advertised, and has yet to say so plainly. The bivector construction may retain interest as geometry — the Collective Comment allows that much — but "interesting geometry outside Bell's assumptions" is precisely what the bet was not about.

[Richard Gill]

Bryan

You lost. You refused to accept you lost. At some point I might have said “forget it”. See if you can find your email to me and my reply to your email. 

Stop trying to rewrite history in order to cover up your embarassing foolishness. You wanted to get attention for your fantasy solution to the mystery of quantum entanglement. You did get attention but nobody has bought it.

Anton: did you explain to ChatGPT that there were two bets or wagers?

1) The Bell Game Challenge. December 2021. I challenged *anyone* to do a computer simulation which constituted a disproof of Bell’s theorem by counterexample. Several attempts were made, none succeeded.

https://gill1109.com/2021/12/22/the-bell-game-challenge/

2) The Big Bell Bet. January 2022. Bryan made a wager with *me* that he would convince the majority of our peers, the quant-ph community and quantum foundations community, that he had abolished quantum weirdness. The major papers by Zeilinger etc would be retracted. The quantum computing industry would collapse. It did not happen. He has had zero impact..

https://gill1109.com/2022/01/02/the-big-bell-bet/

Perhaps we could end this discussion by agreeing on a new wager, concerning his forthcoming paper and my forthcoming refutation of its claims.

I predict that his paper will not make a splash. Quantum foundations community life will go on as if it never existed. Bryan: what do you predict? Want to bet on it? 

Put your money where your mouth is. Stake your academic reputation!

Richard

Sent from my iPad

On 12 Jul 2026, at 00:38, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CALLw9YxiBb5NQsfuKGE_UDs7JMfrp5qj4Zm6n4z36UEqKsKrpA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Richard Gill]

Thank you Anton, That is a great relief!

The bet is cancelled. But honesty requires some post-bet cleaning up.

I’m open to a new bet. Bryan, where would you like to place the goal posts this time?

Note also that my original computer simulation challenge is still out there.

Sent from my iPad

On 12 Jul 2026, at 04:51, antonvrba <anto...@gmail.com> wrote:

Bryan, The power of AI amazes me, I never tell anything to AI, I ask AI if the bet was cancelled.

--
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/f4daeaa2-05f5-4ebc-92dd-71eb4d509ce8n%40googlegroups.com.

[Richard Gill]

To clarify: the bet was cancelled because Bryan refused to concede he lost it, though the fact he lost it was evident to all.

What I learnt from this: Bryan lives in a private fantasy world.

I’m looking forward to having some fun when his next publication comes out. If it comes out.

Sent from my iPad

On 12 Jul 2026, at 05:38, Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thank you Anton, That is a great relief!

[Mark Hadley]

I'm not sure that Bryan just lives in a fantasy world. I would class his behaviour as fraudulent.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/78488276-CD15-42C2-B5A3-31E3369C1AF2%40gmail.com.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Dear Anton,

Glad you found it.  I do not want to comment on what AI says.  I stand by my work and there is no doubt you and others think the fermion is fundamental and it is not.  

The spin helicity paper does one pedagogical thing, it shows that correlation accounts for the violation.  I see that as undergrad physics:  That statement by Bell that "if it is local it will not agree ......" is categorically wrong.  I showed very simply that the coherence is due to the off-diagonal elements of the singlet.  

So ask AI specific questions.  How about the Double Slit.  

Sanctuary, B. The Double-Slit Experiment in the Bivector Standard Model. Axioms 2026, 15(6), 417; https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms15060417

 I do not disprove BI, never will, do not try. I disagree with the absurd notion that nonlocality is a viable resource.  That is what I showed REPEATEDLY. 

But there are 7 other papers you did not review.  Ask about the double slit?

So the bet is over,  And I did not trumpet nor act arrogantly nor triumphantly as you say.  I just presented the papers: find one trumpeting from me.

Did you take Richard to task for lying about the canceled bet?  You see I am honest and Richard is dishonest, not just by ignoring the cancellation, but in every aspect of his obsession with the veracity of Bell, Gill is the GATEKEEPER,  

Bryan

--
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/f4daeaa2-05f5-4ebc-92dd-71eb4d509ce8n%40googlegroups.com.

[Richard Gill]

Bryan

Your papers do not show that the singlet correlation has a local realistic explanation. You merely assert it, again and again. I will write a short paper explaining it to you.

I did not lie about the cancelled bet. I won the bet and you refused to admit it. Cancelled = your debt is cancelled. I’m not interested in your money.

Your dishonesty is worth remarking on from time to time.

Richard

Sent from my iPhone

On 12 Jul 2026, at 12:06, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CALLw9YwMLF6-b4pMRpb%2BGwdOOyFjpwhYHN70Q-Mu3i9sfo2JgQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Richard,

The following statement, and your reply before Anton found it, shows you to be really more dishonest and manipulative than I thought.  To suggest you have forgotten it is a serious misrepresentation of the truth. 

Date: 12 March 2024 at 15:53:39 CET

To: Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com>

Thanks Bryan

I agree we should call off the bet. 

Richard

I can defend my science. You cannot now defend yourself for being a liar.  You used the bet, (when you knew it was over) to continue to try to berate me, and demand payment.  

And my new paper, that you keep begging for, will be at least three months, which is why I want to get away from your bleating, and off-base speculation that I have done this or that wrong, when you do not know, and do not read..    

I would bet on my new work, but you are dishonest, and you told me last time you have financial difficulties.  That was why we canceled.  If we bet again, then we would both deposit the money and there would be stricter rules.  But why should I bet with a liar?

Repeatedly saying I am wrong (without proof and just saying it) is an illusory truth effect--A common propaganda ploy. So I hope people realize this. Neither you nor Mark, or anyone, has found any errors beyond nitpicking.  Until you do, I stand by my work.

Mark's imbecility and inappropriate suggestion to Tricky Dicky to sue me seems a bit silly and moot now.

Bryan

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Richard

You say "To clarify: the bet was cancelled because Bryan refused to concede he lost it, though the fact he lost it was evident to all."

Is a categorical lie.  

Stop lying to us all, about the Bet and about Bell

Bryan

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Richard the Fainthhearted liar.  He just lied again. He said I had lost when we canceled. That is a lie, deliberate and bold faced.

You find ONE email before the canceled date in which we discuss who won?  NONE exist, we did not discuss who won until after my papers came out, which was submitted on MAY 18, of 2024, AFTER WE CANCELED!!!!

STOP LYING, STOP REPEATING.   Also, for me, honesty is my most important value.  I seriously object when you suggest any dishonesty on my part. YOU have NO evidence I have been dishonest, but you have.  

A liar defends by lying. 

Bryan

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Anton,

I did not lose because the bet was cancelled before any decision about who won was made.  Thanks for looking up the emails. 

Until you or anyone can show that the second solution to the Dirac equation using Cl(2,2) is wrong, I will not concede.  Well Penrose does the same, so I am in good company.

I say that you, and almost every physicist believes the matter-antimatter solution. It gives fermions as fundamental and the SM with all its problems, despite numerical success.  That horrible Lagrangian that goes on forever is ugly, not beautiful,  If you look at Cl(2,2) you will realize that physics has been barking up the wrong tree for 100 years; that thousands of project on nonlocality are baseless; that NP was given in error in 2022, billions of research funds are wasted, and the answer lies in bivectors. 

And parity is not violated, neutrinos do not exist (never been seen anyway), and spin is not a point, it has a geometric structure.

That is my answer, and the bet is irrelevant in that light. So I prefer you look at science, and not politics.

You should also recognize that Richard has been dishonest all along.

Bryan

On Sat, Jul 11, 2026 at 6:07 PM antonvrba <anto...@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/90d41d3a-17a3-4b96-9475-81f606f8fd01n%40googlegroups.com.

[Austin Fearnley]

Dear Bryan

There was a recent thread about Bell & 2-slit under this label "Re: Bell Experiments and the Two-Slit Experiment".  Not sure if your 2-slit paper ( https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms15060417 ) had a mention here.

In my preon model, the fermions and bosons are about as fundamental as an atom once was.  IMO neither are fundamental.  Not sure why you claim one (bosons?) is more fundamental than the other as both seem to have separatable properties.  

I also recently had a discussion with Mark about obtaining the 2-slit effect using retrocausality.  

I asked Gemini AI:
OK. It is Bryan's abstract to his paper at https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms15060417 . I am interested in his formula used to generate his Figure 3. It uses P(y) ~ (cos.sinh)^2 which I could use by splitting into separate forwards and backwards (Cramer-like) terms cos.sinh in my retrocausal approach. I also am not sure if he generated Figure 3 using a computer simulation or just maths. I am not trusting of a 'just maths' method.

AI reply:  Figure 3 in Bryan Sanctuary’s The Double-Slit Experiment in the Bivector Standard Model is generated through mathematical plotting of closed-form equations, not discrete computer simulations. The paper’s probability density function, P(y) utilizes hyperbolic and trigonometric functions derived from the Bivector Standard Model to represent phase distributions over slit geometries. The mathematical structure, specifically the cos.sinh terms, can be interpreted within a transactional framework as representing forward-moving offer waves and backward-moving confirmation waves.

(Oh dear the Bell bet has flared up again as I write.)

Austin

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Hi Austin,

Ignore the bet, science is more important.  The SM is based on fermions as fundamental.  The BiSM is based on bosons being fundamental.  From my new paper, (not submitted yet) I define a fermion:

A fermion is a polarized blade of a bivector and carries angular momentum $\frac{\hbar}{2}$, charge $e^-$, and mass $m_e$.

So fermions are emergent in my view. Please think about that for a bit. 

In your double slit question to AI, you asked about the computer program.  Well I derive the usual interference, so little change from standard approach in the end (except the slow statistical build up), but from one particle. So you might  ask AI to comment on if the internal clock which is new, and is it viable to explain double slit.  You might ask if the explanation of the origin of Matter Waves  is viable.

Bryan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/ff647d47-e963-4500-a0c9-c12450e416f6n%40googlegroups.com.

[anton vrba]

Hi Austin, Please do not hijack the thread, the topic is The Gill–Sanctuary wager; a proposed resolution

Your post does not contribute it is simply noise.  You should start a separate conversation, learn some basic manners.

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

From "Austin Fearnley" <ben...@hotmail.com>

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

Date 7/12/2026 12:25:08 PM

Subject Re: [Bell_quantum_foundations] The Gill–Sanctuary wager; a proposed resolution

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Hi Again Austin

Ask AI

Consider spin to be a boson  and a bivector with two blades, each with opposite chirality. Discuss the math consequence of using Clifford algebra Cl(2,2) rather than Cl(1,3) in the Dirac equation.  

Bryan

On Sun, Jul 12, 2026 at 7:25 AM Austin Fearnley <ben...@hotmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/ff647d47-e963-4500-a0c9-c12450e416f6n%40googlegroups.com.

[Austin Fearnley]

The bet will never be over.  No doubt there will be a thousand more posts about it to come.  This current thread will only be remembered by AI.

Manners:  Bryan gave a reference to his 2-slit paper.  I merely followed that up.  Bryan's physics is very relevant to how he views the bet.

[Mark Hadley]

The bet stood uncontested by either party until the deadline. 

At the deadlines  Bryan has lost the bet. He presented no evidence otherwise.

And Bryan refused to honour the bet and pay up.

Mark

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/2320438F-6269-4694-B999-B16F8EAE01D9%40gmail.com.

[Mark Hadley]

Richard statement is exactly true.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CALLw9Yyc3c8-v9vVeAKcspNAKD8EOXWMjEaR3uCbQASvFB3QQw%40mail.gmail.com.

[anton vrba]

Austin the bet is over, Bryan conceded that his model is not a counterexample to Bell’s theorem in the

mathematical sense. published it in MDPI  

see https://www.mdpi.com/2624-960X/8/3/57

also read the pdf I attached to the opening post.

Although the bet is cancelled, that means its monetary implications, but the fact remains that the scientific basis for the bet (disproof Bell Theorem) remains and Bryan conceded, in that sense Richard won.

A disproof of Bell's Theorem  would be a major event, in the two years since Bryan published his paper, not a single social media channel is discussing this. (@Bryan if I am wrong please show evidence of such support) so he has not convinced a single peer. Furthermore, I cannot find anyone referencing his work and building on Bryan's ideas.

The only discussion that remains, whether Bryan's bivector approach is a viable alternative foundational ansatz to QM. That is not a bet that is a scientific discussion.

Regards Anton

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

From "Austin Fearnley" <ben...@hotmail.com>

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

Date 7/12/2026 1:19:10 PM

Subject Re: [Bell_quantum_foundations] The Gill–Sanctuary wager; a proposed resolution

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Shut up and read the writing on the wall.  Richard LIED and deliberately misled you all  That is clear

And you are a parrot.

Bryan

[anton vrba]

Bryan, 

1)  you write: So the bet is over,  And I did not trumpet nor act arrogantly nor triumphantly as you say.  I just presented the papers: find one trumpeting from me.  Challenge accepted

https://groups.google.com/g/bell_quantum_foundations/c/0nx_as-XUMc/m/ztCiY3JEAgAJ 
quote- I have found the classical origin of spin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  All others failed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  That is a Holy Grail.  -unquote

Do I need to say anything more?

2) you write: Shut up and read the writing on the wall.  Richard LIED and deliberately misled you all  That is clear And you are a parrot.  I assume it is directed to me as it appears after my clarification to Austin. I find your conduct academically shameful, but I won't respond in kind. 

Furthermore, inaction to clear the paradoxical contradiction regarding your article "Spin Helicity and the Disproof of Bell’s Theorem" breaks all  scientific norms. I reference your reply to my Collective Comment published by MDPI. Quote

"Our claim is therefore not that Bell’s theorem is mathematically incorrect. We agree that Bell’s theorem is mathematically valid within its stated assumptions. Our position is that bivector spin does not belong to the class of models Bell considered and therefore lies outside the scope of the theorem." 

a complete contradiction to the article title.  That MDPI have not asked for a correction or withdrawal puzzles me. The honest consequence would be a corrigendum or retraction of the 'disproof' framing, since the title now asserts something you have disclaimed in the same journal. That is yours to initiate, not MDPI's.

Regards

Anton

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Anton,

Yes, I agree, I was really happy that I found the classical origin of spin (would you not too?), so you are right, I was and am enthusiastic, and went overboard.  Also, I do not disdain you in any way. on the contrary.  I disdain those who are dishonest.  I am not.

  Austin has located the March 2024 correspondence showing that we mutually cancelled the wager before Paper I was submitted. That factual matter is now documented, so I consider it closed.

Bryan 

[anton vrba]

Dear All,

I think we can now consider the Gill–Sanctuary wager resolved. Both parties agree it was mutually cancelled in March 2024, and that is documented. Who won, who lost, whether a debt ever existed — none of it matters any more. The wager was only ever a proxy for the real question, and it is time to return to that.

On the science, one point of genuine progress is worth recording. Bryan now states plainly that his framework does not claim Bell's theorem is mathematically wrong, but that bivector spin lies outside the class of models Bell considered. That is a clear and defensible position, and a more honest description of what the work actually does. 

So let me suggest how we proceed from here, in good faith:

Let Bryan post his ideas. Each distinct idea — the double-slit treatment, the bivector Standard Model, the fine-structure work, and so on — under its own clearly titled thread, so that discussion stays focused and a critique of one claim is not taken as a verdict on all of them.

The rest of us are then free to engage, agree, or object on the merits, thread by thread.

Two ground rules I would urge on everyone, myself included. First, silence is not agreement: if a claim draws no response, that is not endorsement nor disagreement --- and it should not be cited as such --- at most it indicates lack of interest. Second, we drop the personal invective. "Liar," "fraud," "parrot," and the rest add nothing and drive away exactly the careful readers whose judgement is worth having. Disagree with the mathematics as sharply as you like; leave the man alone.

We have spent four years and many thousands of emails on this. Let us spend the next stretch on the physics.

Regards,

Anton

P.S. The internet does not forget. This forum is publicly viewable, and will remain so indefinitely; intemperate language tends to reflect on its author more than its target.

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

From "Bryan Sanctuary" <bryancs...@gmail.com>

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

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

Date 7/12/2026 3:19:23 PM

Subject Re: [Bell_quantum_foundations] The Gill–Sanctuary wager; a proposed resolution

[Mark Hadley]

Bryan does indeed claim that his work is out side the scope of Bells. But he claims it without proof.

In fact his model is simply a local hidden variable theory.

I have written a proof of how it can be written as a local hidden variable theory and shown mathematically how it can be written it the same way as Bells. I have passed that on the Bryan ages ago 

So the most important part of his work is no more than  an unverified, unsubstantiated claim.

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/emf98c18e4-8ea4-4c9d-b531-700d6e4978c9%40gmail.com.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Anton,

Hear, hear,  well said, and it is what I want and have been pushing for.  

I am happy to engage with real questions, but really, as I said, I am trying to take a respite until the paper is reviewed.

Thanks for this and making suggestions that are appropriate and welcome.

Bryan

[Richard Gill]

Well said, Anton.

I accept everything you say.

I wish to raise a new point.

EPR argued, assuming locality, that QM was wrong or incomplete

Bell argued that QM was wrong or nonlocal

He also argued in other papers that it was incomplete

I think most people here think it is incomplete - almost everyone is trying to add to it

Bryan has an alternative to QM based on what he calls Quaternion spin but it produces the same *probabilistic* predictions. He has not appear to have addressed the measurement problem. He does not have a complete deterministic account of what physically happens in a single set of events (emission, transmission, detection, clicks).

He seems to agree that it cannot be done. The pattern in the final data only slowly emerges.

So I’m looking forward to his next paper. If it includes a fully documented (ie reproducible) simulation experiment, then I predict that if the simulation reproduces the singlet correlations of binary measurement outcomes, it will include action at a distance or violate “no conspiracy” (statistical independence), in particular, freedom to have settings determined externally and freely.

Is anyone interested in betting on this?

Richard 

Sent from my iPhone

On 12 Jul 2026, at 17:38, anton vrba <anto...@gmail.com> wrote:



[Austin Fearnley]

Bryan is trying to build up an interference pattern on a screen.  He has formulae to generate that pattern.  His method assumes an electron is a point (or quasi-point?) and so the pattern must build up as group effect. It doesn't need to do so slowly.  It shouldn't be a criticism of his method IMO.  It is up to experts to try to deny the validity of his cl(2,2) method.

[Richard Gill]

Austin

If you believe in retrocausality or superdeterminism, there is no problem

My criticism of Prof.em. Dr Sanctuary’s “method” is that it is mathematically inconsistent and demonstrably mathematically wrong. The eminent scientist confirms that Bell’s theorem is correct and affirms that measurement outcomes are binary. He says that Bell didn’t account for quaternion spin. But Bell nowhere excludes quaternion spin.

Bryan does not accept retrocausality or superdeterminism, as far as I know. He has said that Parker’s theory is interesting. Well, so do I. I find retrocausality and superdeterminism both interesting. The problem is that they are boyth too good at “explaining” just about anything: both the things we know as well as things which we generally think are impossible.

For instance, if Lucy Letby is an evil witch, who can cause babies to die even while she is on vacation, that does explain everything. It doesn’t quite explain why she was foolish enough to slip a confession into her diary [not a private diary, but a diary with social appointments, birthdays, and the like], where police would certainly find it. She is both devilishly clever *and* completely incompetent. Making four attempts to murder a tiny defenceless baby before finally succeeding on her fifth attempt. Using weird methods which make no sense. An easy Google search would come up with better methods. Using a method which put four other British nurses in jail for life is so dumb, when there are so many easier methods available to a smart evil nurse.

The theory that she is an evil killer is utterly incoherent. Bryan’s theory is utterly incoherent. One might use the derogatory word “insane”. (The theory is insane, not whoever came up with it. They were possibly lacking in certain key competencies).

Richard 

Sent from my iPad

On 13 Jul 2026, at 11:38, Austin Fearnley <ben...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Bryan is trying to build up an interference pattern on a screen.  He has formulae to generate that pattern.  His method assumes an electron is a point (or quasi-point?) and so the pattern must build up as group effect. It doesn't need to do so slowly.  It shouldn't be a criticism of his method IMO.  It is up to experts to try to deny the validity of his cl(2,2) method.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/7d8619c5-664a-49db-b94c-7a240005982bn%40googlegroups.com.

[Austin Fearnley]

However,
Bryan's Figure 3 contains interference pattern on the screen.  But the cos^2*sinh^2 formula to build the pattern uses slit separation (d) and the screen distance (L).  How does the electron passing through slit 1 get to know the distance between slits 1 and 2?

I do not disagree with Bryan's CL(2,2) approach.  But I suspect that his method uses retrocausality without that being explicitly so.

Lucy.  I briefly attended the trial, as you know.  One factor I worry about is the sheer oppressiveness of that extremely long trial.  Full media presence and a roomfull of police and press in an overspill room.  As I was a juror twice many years ago, I know how forbidding that energy and weight impresses a juror and pushes you to think that there must be something strong in the prosecution case for such a weighty presence.  Case half won before you even start the evidence.  Then ... bring on Lucy's defence - that is, one plumber.  She is very clearly the victim of a misscarriage of justice.