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

Bell's Theorem Refuted Mathematically: du Sautoy Cannot be Right.

Gordon Watson

Published Nov 1, 2017• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

Here begins a precautionary tale from a creative life in STEM. Bringing an elementary knowledge of vectors to Bell (1964)—en route to refuting Bell's inequality and his theorem—we aim to help STEM students study one of the strangest double-errors in the history of science. To that end we question Marcus du Sautoy's claim that Bell's theorem is as mathematically robust as they come.

Related papers

Bell's Theorem Refuted for Stem Students

Gordon Watson

Here begins a precautionary tale from a creative life in STEM. Bringing an elementary knowledge of vectors to Bell (1964)—en route to refuting Bell’s inequality and his theorem—we aim to help STEM students study one of the strangest double-errors in the history of science. To that end we question du Sautoy’s (2016) claim that Bell’s theorem is as mathematically robust as they come.

•Nov 1, 2017•0 citations

Bell’s Theorem Refuted Mathematically for Professor X.

Gordon Watson

Bringing an elementary knowledge of sums and averages to Bell (1964), we refute Bell’s theorem.

•Dec 1, 2017•0 citations

What We Can Know: is Marcus du Sautoy Right re Bell's Theorem?

Gordon Watson

•Nov 1, 2017•0 citations

Bell’s Theorem Refuted via Elementary Probability Theory

Gordon Watson

•Oct 1, 2020•0 citations

Bell's Inequality Refuted on Bell's Own Terms

Gordon Watson

Bell's famous inequality contradicts ours. But ours holds algebraically, experimentally, classically and quantum-mechanically: Bell's does not. So Bell's inequality is refuted on Bell's terms as we identify his naively-realistic error and correct it.

•Jul 1, 2018•0 citations

Big Shock. Bell's Theorem Collapses Again.

Ilija Barukčić

Both from the points of view of recognition and understanding, the knowledge of fallacies can arm us against many kinds of mistakes and can help us to overcome serious scientific disagreements in a reasonable way. Being able to avoid or to detect fallacies can been viewed as a supplement to criteria of good scientific reasoning. Fallacies can be identified in several different ways. One way is to derive a logical contradiction such as +0 = +1. Still, a unified theory of fallacies giving us a systematic framework for demarcating fallacies and other kinds of mistakes is to be achieved. The present inquiry focuses on the logical and mathematical content of Bell's theorem. As we shall see, Bell's theorem itself is a false but popular belief, a deceptively bad argument. Bell's theorem is the most profound logical fallacy of physics and of science as such.

•Apr 13, 2016•0 citations
Here begins a precautionary tale from a creative life in STEM. Bringing an elementary knowledge of vectors to Bell (1964)—en route to refuting Bell's inequality and his theorem—we aim to help STEM students study one of the strangest double-errors in the history of science. To that end we question Marcus du Sautoy's claim that Bell's theorem is as mathematically robust as they come.
Both from the points of view of recognition and understanding, the knowledge of fallacies can arm us against many kinds of mistakes and can help us to overcome serious scientific disagreements in a reasonable way. Being able to avoid or to detect fallacies can been viewed as a supplement to criteria of good scientific reasoning. Fallacies can be identified in several different ways. One way is to derive a logical contradiction such as +0 = +1. Still, a unified theory of fallacies giving us a systematic framework for demarcating fallacies and other kinds of mistakes is to be achieved. The present inquiry focuses on the logical and mathematical content of Bell's theorem. As we shall see, Bell's theorem itself is a false but popular belief, a deceptively bad argument. Bell's theorem is the most profound logical fallacy of physics and of science as such.