Bell’s Theorem is Silly, False, Misleading, Interesting

Gordon Watson

Published Nov 1, 2015• 0 citations

Abstract

1 October 2015: A reply to the challenge, “What’s your problem with Bell’s theorem?” (For me, a problem is a deviation from an expectation.)

Related papers

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, 20160 citations

Bell’s Theorem Refuted via Elementary Probability Theory

Gordon Watson

Oct 1, 20200 citations

Bell’s Theorem Refuted Irrefutably on Bell’s Own Terms

Gordon Watson

Jul 1, 20180 citations

Bell’s Theorem is Silly, False, Misleading

Gordon Watson

#1.2. SEPRB delivers EPRB-correlated particles. Detectors D are polarizer-analyzers. The principalaxis of Alice’s dichotomic linear-polarizer is oriented a in 3-space, Bob’s b. The respective analyzeroutputs are A± and B±. Q∗ denotes experiments here; eg, EPRB [Q 1 2 ], Aspect (2002) [Q1]. Based on Bell (1964): it’s a matter of indifference whether λ denotes a single variable or a set, or whether the variables are discrete or continuous. (I associate spin s with λ. In (2), pristine λi and λi are correlated by the conservation of angular momentum.) Given Einstein-locality, local particle/detector interactions yield local results. Ai is thus determined by a and λi alone, Bi by b and λi alone.

Oct 1, 20150 citations

Can Bell’s Theorem Be Disproved?

Justo Pastor Lambare

Science TrendsJan 30, 20180 citations

Einstein’s Reply to Bell and Others? a Simple Constructive Classical Foundation for Quantum Theory

Gordon Watson

Having elsewhere refuted Bell’s theorem irrefutably with elementary mathematics, we here advance Einstein’s ideas similarly with a classical Lorentz-invariant theory, observationally-indistinguishable from quantum mechanics. Given that our elementary theory is straight-forward and non-mysterious, we provide an Einsteinian—a specifically local and truly realistic—advance toward understanding the classical nature of physical reality at the quantum level. We thus resolve Bell’s dilemma in Einstein’s favor: as Bell half-expected, he and his supporters were being rather silly.

Aug 1, 20180 citations