My YouTube channel & Bell Test videos

Skip to first unread message

Karma Peny

Jun 12, 2022, 6:19:35 PM6/12/22
to Bell inequalities and quantum foundations
Hi All,

I'll start by saying it is an honour and a privilege to be part of this group as I am in awe of the intellect and expert knowledge displayed by the members here. For anyone that's interested I have several videos on my YouTube channel about Bell test experiments and one about quantum computers. I have the very common name of Mark Payne and so I use the anagram 'Karma Peny' to achieve a more unique identity online. My background is in computing and I only studied maths & physics to A-level and since I've forgotten almost everything I did at school I am no more than a lay person with a feeble intellect compared to others here, but with an interest in QM and particularly Bell test experiments.

You can visit my YouTube channel here:

Please don't be put off by the many videos on my channel in which I deny that 0.999... can equal 1. I am merely trying to use that issue to highlight a wider and much more serious point about fundamental flaws at the core of the philosophy of mathematics.

In a recent comment under my video 'Quantum Entanglement Bell Tests Part 1: Bell's Inequality (My Best Explanation)' one visitor said : "This one, @Karma Peny, is in my personal opinion the best explanation. So far, at least for me, this explanation outperformed the ones of world famous physicists."

I am not bothered about the 'exotic' loopholes because if one of these were the cause of a Bell inequality violation then it would be of a similar order of bizarreness as the various QM interpretations. For example, if some mysterious mechanism of the universe were to somehow connect the output of any given pseudo random number algorithms to the quantum particles/waves in a Bell test experiment then that would be pretty damn weird! And so there should never be the need to replace algorithmic pseudo random number generators with hardware random number generators, especially as this would introduce more possibilities for hardware-related hidden correlations.

I'd like there to be a single definitive Bell test experimental set-up that addresses all non-exotic loopholes and which can easily be performed at practically any university in the world. Also it should be possible to possible to repeat the experiment several times over to show that the violation was not just a freak result. And people all over the world would be able to make tweaks, such as trying different RNGs, replacing various components for components with slightly different specifications and so on, and we could have published results about what effects, if any, these tweaks made.

If we are going to trash local realism then I believe we need wide-scale testing and analysis using a definitive experimental set-up. What we seem to have at the moment is akin to testing if mediums can really talk to dead people, where the people in charge of doing the lab-condition experiments already believe that mediums CAN speak to dead people. So they only want to publish results that appear to confirm this belief. Any one of these experiments might have possible loopholes but we might believe they can't all be wrong and so we might accept that mediums CAN speak to dead people!

I am skeptical about many of the claims of Quantum Mechanics. It used to be claimed that the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiment was supposedly changing events that had already occurred in the past. This claim required you to buy-in to the notion that a particle-wave choice was somehow being made and that this choice was amazingly retrospectively being reversed after it had already taken place.

In early 2021 I released my 'Disbeliever Part 8' video in which I suggested that the results of this experiment were being interpreted incorrectly (admittedly this was just a lay person's uninformed opinion rather than a serious scientific suggestion). I suggested that when the interference pattern mysteriously seemed to re-appear, it might simply be because they were filtering out two different parts of the image.

However, towards the end of 2021 some quantum physicists released their own 'debunked' videos about the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiment in which they made pretty much the same point that I had made. Some of them even conceded that the double-slit experiment does not demonstrate particle-wave duality (because even when one slit is used the pattern is what we would expect from a wave rather than bullet-like particles). And so sometimes we skeptics might be on the right track when we argue that the simpler, more boring, more down-to-earth explanations are more likely to be correct than the mysterious absurd-sounding ones.


Richard Gill

Jun 13, 2022, 6:18:29 AM6/13/22
to Karma Peny, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations
Welcome to the group, Mark!

Concerning the question whether or not 0.999… can equal 1, you might be delighted - or put off - by Nicolas Gisin’s recent work, described in a blog:

There certainly are fundamental issues in mathematics which might be connected to quantum mysteries. I wouldn’t call them fundamental flaws, though there is obviously a lot of flawed thinking around concerning them. I think for instance that Penrose’s ideas connecting consciousness to Gödel’s theorem are fundamentally flawed. Thankfully, I have the impression he too thinks they need rethinking now.

I’m a great fan of the book “Gödel Escher Bach”, having already been taught Gödel’s theorems by John H. Conway at university. Douglas Hoffstädter wrote in that book something about nonsense writing, taking a Beatles song as example. Grammatically correct but meaningless. I wrote to him (snail mail) and pointed out that to an Englishman well aware of English class structure, the song in question was full of meaning. I got a very nice letter back from him. Still have it somewhere.


Karma Peny

Jun 14, 2022, 3:29:37 PM6/14/22
to Bell inequalities and quantum foundations
Thanks Richard,

I'll have to check out those references & I'd be interested to know what that Beatles song was!


Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages