Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:1203.2529

Refutation of Richard Gill's Argument Against my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

Joy Christian

Published Mar 12, 2012• 7 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

I identify a number of errors in Richard Gill's purported refutation (arXiv:1203.1504) of my disproof of Bell's theorem. In particular, I point out that his central argument is based, not only on a rather trivial misreading of my counterexample to Bell's theorem, but also on a simple oversight of a freedom of choice in the orientation of a Clifford algebra. What is innovative and original in my counterexample is thus mistaken for an error, at the expense of the professed universality and generality of Bell's theorem.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1203.2529

Related papers

Disproof of ''Disproof of Bell's Theorem by Clifford Algebra Valued Local Variables''

Tung Ten Yong

Key mathematical and conceptual errors are pointed out regarding the paper ''Disproof of Bell's Theorem by Clifford Algebra Valued Local Variables'' by Joy Christian.

arXiv:0712.1637•Dec 11, 2007•0 citations

Comment on: Disproof of Bell's Theorem by Clifford Algebra Valued Local Variables

Marcin Pawłowski

We ''save'' Bell's Theorem by showing a flaw in Christian's argument.

arXiv:quant-ph/0703218•Mar 23, 2007•0 citations

Refutation of Some Arguments Against my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

Joy Christian

In a couple of recent preprints Moldoveanu has suggested that there are errors in my disproof of Bell's theorem. Here I show that this claim is false. In particular, I show that my local-realistic framework is incorrectly and misleadingly presented in both of his preprints. In addition there are a number of serious mathematical and conceptual errors in his discussion of my framework. For example, contrary to his claim, my framework is manifestly non-contextual. In particular, quantum correlations are understood within it as purely topological effects, not contextual effects.

arXiv:1110.5876•Oct 19, 2011•3 citations

On a conjecture of Gill on Bell experiments

Daniel B. Rubin

This note gives a counterexample to a conjecture of Richard Gill that was stated as open problem related to the statistical analysis of Bell experiments in quantum mechanics, and which can formulated as an elementary probability problem.

Examples and Counterexamples•Oct 10, 2025•0 citations

Disproof of Bell's Theorem: Reply to Critics

Joy Christian

This is a collection of my responses to the criticisms of my argument against the impossibility proof of John Bell, which aims to undermine any conceivable local realistic completion of quantum mechanics. I plan to periodically update this preprint instead of creating a new one for each response.

arXiv:quant-ph/0703244•Mar 26, 2007•7 citations

"Disproof of Bell's Theorem" : more critics

Philippe Grangier

In a series of recent papers (quant-ph/0703179, quant-ph/0703244, arXiv:0707.1333) Joy Christian claims to have "disproved Bell's theorem". Though his work is certainly intellectually stimulating, we argue below that his main claim is unwarranted.

arXiv:0707.2223•Jul 15, 2007•3 citations
I identify a number of errors in Richard Gill's purported refutation (arXiv:1203.1504) of my disproof of Bell's theorem. In particular, I point out that his central argument is based, not only on a rather trivial misreading of my counterexample to Bell's theorem, but also on a simple oversight of a freedom of choice in the orientation of a Clifford algebra. What is innovative and original in my counterexample is thus mistaken for an error, at the expense of the professed universality and generality of Bell's theorem.
In a couple of recent preprints Moldoveanu has suggested that there are errors in my disproof of Bell's theorem. Here I show that this claim is false. In particular, I show that my local-realistic framework is incorrectly and misleadingly presented in both of his preprints. In addition there are a number of serious mathematical and conceptual errors in his discussion of my framework. For example, contrary to his claim, my framework is manifestly non-contextual. In particular, quantum correlations are understood within it as purely topological effects, not contextual effects.