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 for Stem Students

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 du Sautoy’s (2016) claim that Bell’s theorem is as mathematically robust as they come.

Related papers

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

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 Marcus du Sautoy's 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 Theorem refuted, and Bell's Error corrected, all on one page

Gordon Watson

•Sep 16, 2026•0 citations

Anti CHSH - Refutation Of The CHSH Inequality

Ilija Barukčić

Abstract: The principle of causality occupies an important place in the history of the philosophical interpretation of quantum mechanics from the beginning. In last consequence, today’s Copenhagen dominated acausal interpretation of quantum mechanics casts doubt upon traditional views in the philosophy of nature and demands the revision of the principle of causality at a fundamental level of theoretical description in physics. Testing the mathematical and logical consistency of the quantum mechanical description of nature i. e. especially such as non-locality has become a subject of an ongoing dispute and research. Today, quantum-mechanical concepts i. e. such as non-locality refer to some mathematical foundations, especially to Bell's inequality and the CHSH inequality. Experimental data, analyzed by the help of Bell’s inequality or the CHSH inequality favor a quantum mechanical description of nature, over local hidden variable theories (often referred to as local realism). In general, the use of mathematically inconsistent methods can imply a waste of money, time and effort on this account. Under some certain conditions (the assumption of independence) Bell's theorem and the CHSH inequality are already refuted. The purpose of this publication is explore the terra incognita, the interior logic that may lie beyond Bell's original theorem and the CHSH-inequality and to refute both, Bell's original theorem and the CHSH-inequality under any circumstances by the proof that we can derive a logical contradiction out of Bell's inequalities. Thus far, accept Bell's theorem or the CHSH-inequality as correct,

•Nov 1, 2014•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 du Sautoy’s (2016) claim that Bell’s theorem is as mathematically robust as they come.
Abstract: The principle of causality occupies an important place in the history of the philosophical interpretation of quantum mechanics from the beginning. In last consequence, today’s Copenhagen dominated acausal interpretation of quantum mechanics casts doubt upon traditional views in the philosophy of nature and demands the revision of the principle of causality at a fundamental level of theoretical description in physics. Testing the mathematical and logical consistency of the quantum mechanical description of nature i. e. especially such as non-locality has become a subject of an ongoing dispute and research. Today, quantum-mechanical concepts i. e. such as non-locality refer to some mathematical foundations, especially to Bell's inequality and the CHSH inequality. Experimental data, analyzed by the help of Bell’s inequality or the CHSH inequality favor a quantum mechanical description of nature, over local hidden variable theories (often referred to as local realism). In general, the use of mathematically inconsistent methods can imply a waste of money, time and effort on this account. Under some certain conditions (the assumption of independence) Bell's theorem and the CHSH inequality are already refuted. The purpose of this publication is explore the terra incognita, the interior logic that may lie beyond Bell's original theorem and the CHSH-inequality and to refute both, Bell's original theorem and the CHSH-inequality under any circumstances by the proof that we can derive a logical contradiction out of Bell's inequalities. Thus far, accept Bell's theorem or the CHSH-inequality as correct,