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:2103.00225 · IEEE Access

Comment on “Bell’s Theorem Versus Local Realism in a Quaternionic Model of Physical Space”

Richard David Gill

Published Jan 1, 2021• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

I point out critical errors in the paper “Bell’s Theorem Versus Local Realism in a Quaternionic Model of Physical Space” by J. Christian, published in IEEE Access. Christian’s paper in fact contains several conflicting models. None of them form counterexamples to Bell’s theorem. Most of Christian’s paper is devoted to a model based on the detection loophole due to Pearle (1970).

DOI
10.1109/access.2021.3127572

Related papers

Comment on “Bell’s Theorem Versus Local Realism in a Quaternionic Model of Physical Space”

Richard David Gill

In this paper, critical errors found in the paper “Bell’s theorem versus local realism in a quaternionic model of physical space,” by J. Christian, published in IEEE Access, are pointed out. The above paper, in fact, contains several conflicting models. None of them form counterexamples to Bell’s theorem. Most of Christian’s paper is devoted to a model based on the detection loophole due to Pearle (1970).

•Jan 1, 2021•5 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Bell’s Theorem Versus Local Realism in a Quaternionic Model of Physical Space”’

Joy Christian

In this paper, I respond to a critique of one of my papers previously published in this journal, entitled “Bell’s Theorem Versus Local Realism in a Quaternionic Model of Physical Space.” That paper presents a local-realistic model of quantum correlations based on a quaternionic 3-sphere, taken as a physical space in which we are confined to perform all our experiments. The critique, on the other hand, considers two entirely different models within a flat Euclidean space, neither related to my quaternionic 3-sphere model. It then criticizes its own flat space models and claims that it has thereby criticized the model presented in my paper. Along the way, without providing evidence or proof, it claims that the results in my paper are based on mistakes. I demonstrate that there are no mistakes of any kind in my paper. On the contrary, I bring out a number of elementary mathematical and conceptual mistakes from the critique and the critiques it relies on.

arXiv:2202.05615•IEEE Access•Jan 1, 2022•23 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Dr. Bertlmann’s Socks in a Quaternionic World of Ambidextral Reality”’

Joy Christian

In this paper, I respond to a critique of one of my papers previously published in this journal, entitled ‘Dr. Bertlmann’s socks in a quaternionic world of ambidextral reality.’ The geometrical framework presented in my paper is based on a quaternionic 3-sphere, or$S^{3}$, taken as a model of the physical space in which we are inescapably confined to perform all our experiments. The framework intrinsically circumvents Bell’s theorem by reproducing the singlet correlations local-realistically, without resorting to backward causation, superdeterminism, or any other conspiracy loophole. In this response, I demonstrate point by point that, contrary to its claims, the critique has not found any mistakes in my paper, either in the analytical model of the singlet correlations or in its event-by-event numerical simulation based on Geometric Algebra.

arXiv:2106.09479•IEEE Access•Jan 1, 2021•25 citations

Does Geometric Algebra provide a loophole to Bell's Theorem? (with corrections)

Richard David Gill

In 2007, and in a series of later papers, Joy Christian claimed to refute Bell's theorem, presenting an alleged local realistic model of the singlet correlations using techniques from Geometric Algebra (GA). Several authors published papers refuting his claims, and Christian's ideas did not gain acceptance. However, he recently succeeded in publishing yet more ambitious and complex versions of his theory in fairly mainstream journals. How could this be? The mathematics and logic of Bell's theorem is simple and transparent and has been intensely studied and debated for over 50 years. Christian claims to have a mathematical counterexample to a purely mathematical theorem. Each new version of Christian's model used new devices to circumvent Bell's theorem or depended on a new way to misunderstand Bell's work. These devices and misinterpretations are in common use by other Bell critics, so it useful to identify and name them. I hope that this paper can serve as a useful resource to those who need to evaluate new "disproofs of Bell's theorem". Christian's fundamental idea is simple and quite original: he gives a probabilistic interpretation of the fundamental GA equation a.b = (ab + ba)/2. After that, ambiguous notation and technical complexity allow sign errors to be hidden from sight, and new mathematical errors can be introduced.

arXiv:1203.1504•Mar 7, 2012•10 citations

Comments on "Disproof of Bell's theorem"

Florin Moldoveanu

In a series of very interesting papers [1-7], Joy Christian constructed a counterexample to Bell's theorem. This counterexample does not have the same assumptions as the original Bell's theorem, and therefore it does not represent a genuine disproof in a strict mathematical sense. However, assuming the physical relevance of the new assumptions, the counterexample is shown to be a contextual hidden variable theory. If Bell's theorem's importance is to rule out contextual hidden variable theories obeying relativistic locality, then Joy Christian's counterexample achieves its aim. If however contextual hidden variables theories are not considered genuine physically theories and Bell's theorem's importance stems from its ability to be experimentally confirmed, then Joy Christian's counterexample does not diminish the importance of Bell's theorem. The implications of Joy Christian's counterexample are discussed in the context of information theory. Version 2 note: Subsequent analysis disproved the mathematical consistency of Joy Christian's model. This paper was based on the assumption of the mathematical validity of the model. Except for the addition of this note, the content of this paper was not modified in any other way.

arXiv:1107.1007•Jul 6, 2011•1 citation

Bell's Theorem Refuted; Commonsense Local Realism Defined

Gordon Watson

An open letter to Bellians and the Annals of Physics' Editors re -- it's a proven scientific fact: a violation of local realism has been demonstrated theoretically and experimentally -- after AoP (2016:67). EPR (1935) famously argue that additional variables will bring locality and causality to QM's completion; we show that they are right. Even more famously, Bell (1964) cried ‘impossible' against such variables; we give the shortest possible refutation of his claims. With EPR-based variables (and without QM), an old thought-experiment delivers a commonsensical locally-causal account of EPRB and GHZ in 3-space. We then name the flaw in Bell's theorem – Bell's error -- Bell's 1964:(14a) ≠ Bell's 1964:(14b) under EPRB. Thus, given Bell's (1988:88) gloss on a snippet of von Neumann's work, ‘There's nothing to Bell's theorem -- nor variants like CHSH (1969), Mermin (1990), Peres (1995) -- it's not just flawed, it's silly; not merely false but foolish.' In short, we show that the whole Bellian canon -- with its no-name brand of local realism -- is all of those, and misleading too. Under EPR, mixing common-sense with undergrad math/physics in the classical way so favored by Einstein, we interpret QM locally and realistically. We thus define a new brand of local realism -- CLR, commonsense local realism -- the union of local-causality (no causal influence propagates superluminally) and physical-realism (some physical properties change interactively). Long may EPR rule OK we say.

•Oct 1, 2016•0 citations
I point out critical errors in the paper “Bell’s Theorem Versus Local Realism in a Quaternionic Model of Physical Space” by J. Christian, published in IEEE Access. Christian’s paper in fact contains several conflicting models. None of them form counterexamples to Bell’s theorem. Most of Christian’s paper is devoted to a model based on the detection loophole due to Pearle (1970).
In this paper, I respond to a critique of one of my papers previously published in this journal, entitled “Bell’s Theorem Versus Local Realism in a Quaternionic Model of Physical Space.” That paper presents a local-realistic model of quantum correlations based on a quaternionic 3-sphere, taken as a physical space in which we are confined to perform all our experiments. The critique, on the other hand, considers two entirely different models within a flat Euclidean space, neither related to my quaternionic 3-sphere model. It then criticizes its own flat space models and claims that it has thereby criticized the model presented in my paper. Along the way, without providing evidence or proof, it claims that the results in my paper are based on mistakes. I demonstrate that there are no mistakes of any kind in my paper. On the contrary, I bring out a number of elementary mathematical and conceptual mistakes from the critique and the critiques it relies on.
In this paper, I respond to a critique of one of my papers previously published in this journal, entitled ‘Dr. Bertlmann’s socks in a quaternionic world of ambidextral reality.’ The geometrical framework presented in my paper is based on a quaternionic 3-sphere, orS3S^{3}S3, taken as a model of the physical space in which we are inescapably confined to perform all our experiments. The framework intrinsically circumvents Bell’s theorem by reproducing the singlet correlations local-realistically, without resorting to backward causation, superdeterminism, or any other conspiracy loophole. In this response, I demonstrate point by point that, contrary to its claims, the critique has not found any mistakes in my paper, either in the analytical model of the singlet correlations or in its event-by-event numerical simulation based on Geometric Algebra.
In 2007, and in a series of later papers, Joy Christian claimed to refute Bell's theorem, presenting an alleged local realistic model of the singlet correlations using techniques from Geometric Algebra (GA). Several authors published papers refuting his claims, and Christian's ideas did not gain acceptance. However, he recently succeeded in publishing yet more ambitious and complex versions of his theory in fairly mainstream journals. How could this be? The mathematics and logic of Bell's theorem is simple and transparent and has been intensely studied and debated for over 50 years. Christian claims to have a mathematical counterexample to a purely mathematical theorem. Each new version of Christian's model used new devices to circumvent Bell's theorem or depended on a new way to misunderstand Bell's work. These devices and misinterpretations are in common use by other Bell critics, so it useful to identify and name them. I hope that this paper can serve as a useful resource to those who need to evaluate new "disproofs of Bell's theorem". Christian's fundamental idea is simple and quite original: he gives a probabilistic interpretation of the fundamental GA equation a.b = (ab + ba)/2. After that, ambiguous notation and technical complexity allow sign errors to be hidden from sight, and new mathematical errors can be introduced.
In a series of very interesting papers [1-7], Joy Christian constructed a counterexample to Bell's theorem. This counterexample does not have the same assumptions as the original Bell's theorem, and therefore it does not represent a genuine disproof in a strict mathematical sense. However, assuming the physical relevance of the new assumptions, the counterexample is shown to be a contextual hidden variable theory. If Bell's theorem's importance is to rule out contextual hidden variable theories obeying relativistic locality, then Joy Christian's counterexample achieves its aim. If however contextual hidden variables theories are not considered genuine physically theories and Bell's theorem's importance stems from its ability to be experimentally confirmed, then Joy Christian's counterexample does not diminish the importance of Bell's theorem. The implications of Joy Christian's counterexample are discussed in the context of information theory. Version 2 note: Subsequent analysis disproved the mathematical consistency of Joy Christian's model. This paper was based on the assumption of the mathematical validity of the model. Except for the addition of this note, the content of this paper was not modified in any other way.
An open letter to Bellians and the Annals of Physics' Editors re -- it's a proven scientific fact: a violation of local realism has been demonstrated theoretically and experimentally -- after AoP (2016:67). EPR (1935) famously argue that additional variables will bring locality and causality to QM's completion; we show that they are right. Even more famously, Bell (1964) cried ‘impossible' against such variables; we give the shortest possible refutation of his claims. With EPR-based variables (and without QM), an old thought-experiment delivers a commonsensical locally-causal account of EPRB and GHZ in 3-space. We then name the flaw in Bell's theorem – Bell's error -- Bell's 1964:(14a) ≠ Bell's 1964:(14b) under EPRB. Thus, given Bell's (1988:88) gloss on a snippet of von Neumann's work, ‘There's nothing to Bell's theorem -- nor variants like CHSH (1969), Mermin (1990), Peres (1995) -- it's not just flawed, it's silly; not merely false but foolish.' In short, we show that the whole Bellian canon -- with its no-name brand of local realism -- is all of those, and misleading too. Under EPR, mixing common-sense with undergrad math/physics in the classical way so favored by Einstein, we interpret QM locally and realistically. We thus define a new brand of local realism -- CLR, commonsense local realism -- the union of local-causality (no causal influence propagates superluminally) and physical-realism (some physical properties change interactively). Long may EPR rule OK we say.