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:2202.05615 · IEEE Access

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

Joy Christian

Published Jan 1, 2022• 23 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

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.

DOI
10.1109/access.2022.3146421

Related papers

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

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

Richard David Gill

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).

arXiv:2103.00225•IEEE Access•Jan 1, 2021•0 citations

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

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

Response to ‘Comment on “Quantum correlations are weaved by the spinors of the Euclidean primitives”’

Joy Christian

In this paper, I respond to a critique of one of my papers previously published in the Royal Society Open Science entitled ‘Quantum correlations are weaved by the spinors of the Euclidean primitives.’ Without engaging with the geometrical framework presented in my paper, the critique incorrectly claims that there are mathematical errors in it. I demonstrate that the critique is based on a series of misunderstandings, and refute each of its claims of error. I also bring out a number of logical, mathematical and conceptual errors from the critique and the critiques it relies on.

arXiv:2211.09867•Royal Society Open Science•Nov 1, 2022•21 citations

Local Realism Generalized, EPR Refined, Bell's Theorem Refuted

Gordon Watson

This open letter challenges Annals of Physics' Editors and Bell's supporters on this front: in the context of Bell's theorem -- after AoP (2016:67) -- ‘it's a proven scientific fact that a violation of local realism has been demonstrated theoretically and experimentally.' We show that such claims under the Bellian canon are curtailed by its foundation on a naive realism that is known to be false; ie, under Bohr's old insight (in our terms), a test may disturb the tested system. Further: (i) We define a general all-embracing local realism -- CLR, commonsense local realism -- the union of local-causality (no causal influence propagates superluminally) and physical-realism (some physical properties change interactively). (ii) Under CLR, with EPR-based variables (and without QM), a thought-experiment delivers a local-realistic account of EPRB and GHZ in 3-space. (iii) Under EPR, mixing common-sense with undergrad math/physics in the classical way so favored by Einstein, we interpret QM locally and realistically. (iv) We find the flaw in Bell's theorem: Bell's 1964:(14a) ≠ Bell's 1964:(14b) under EPRB. (v) EPR (1935) famously argue that additional variables will bring locality and causality to QM's completion; we show that they are right. (vi) Even more famously, Bell (1964) cried ‘impossible' against such variables; we give the shortest possible refutation of his claim. (vii) Using Bell's (1988:88) moot gloss on a fragment of von Neumann's work, we conclude: ‘There's nothing to Bell's theorem -- nor Bellian variants like CHSH (1969), Mermin (1990), Peres (1995); nor Bellian endorsements like those by Bricmont, du Sautoy, Goldstein et al., Maudlin, Norsen, Shimony -- it's not just flawed, it's silly; its assumptions nonsense; it's not merely false but foolish' and misleading. (viii) Our results accord with common-sense, QM, Einstein's principles, EPR's belief and Bell's hopes and expectations.

•Nov 1, 2016•0 citations
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 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.
In this paper, I respond to a critique of one of my papers previously published in the Royal Society Open Science entitled ‘Quantum correlations are weaved by the spinors of the Euclidean primitives.’ Without engaging with the geometrical framework presented in my paper, the critique incorrectly claims that there are mathematical errors in it. I demonstrate that the critique is based on a series of misunderstandings, and refute each of its claims of error. I also bring out a number of logical, mathematical and conceptual errors from the critique and the critiques it relies on.
This open letter challenges Annals of Physics' Editors and Bell's supporters on this front: in the context of Bell's theorem -- after AoP (2016:67) -- ‘it's a proven scientific fact that a violation of local realism has been demonstrated theoretically and experimentally.' We show that such claims under the Bellian canon are curtailed by its foundation on a naive realism that is known to be false; ie, under Bohr's old insight (in our terms), a test may disturb the tested system. Further: (i) We define a general all-embracing local realism -- CLR, commonsense local realism -- the union of local-causality (no causal influence propagates superluminally) and physical-realism (some physical properties change interactively). (ii) Under CLR, with EPR-based variables (and without QM), a thought-experiment delivers a local-realistic account of EPRB and GHZ in 3-space. (iii) Under EPR, mixing common-sense with undergrad math/physics in the classical way so favored by Einstein, we interpret QM locally and realistically. (iv) We find the flaw in Bell's theorem: Bell's 1964:(14a) ≠ Bell's 1964:(14b) under EPRB. (v) EPR (1935) famously argue that additional variables will bring locality and causality to QM's completion; we show that they are right. (vi) Even more famously, Bell (1964) cried ‘impossible' against such variables; we give the shortest possible refutation of his claim. (vii) Using Bell's (1988:88) moot gloss on a fragment of von Neumann's work, we conclude: ‘There's nothing to Bell's theorem -- nor Bellian variants like CHSH (1969), Mermin (1990), Peres (1995); nor Bellian endorsements like those by Bricmont, du Sautoy, Goldstein et al., Maudlin, Norsen, Shimony -- it's not just flawed, it's silly; its assumptions nonsense; it's not merely false but foolish' and misleading. (viii) Our results accord with common-sense, QM, Einstein's principles, EPR's belief and Bell's hopes and expectations.