This note gives a counterexample to a conjecture of Richard Gill that was stated as open problem related to the statistical analysis of Bell experiments in quantum mechanics, and which can formulated as an elementary probability problem.
I identify a number of errors in Richard Gill's purported refutation (arXiv:1203.1504) of my disproof of Bell's theorem. In particular, I point out that his central argument is based, not only on a rather trivial misreading of my counterexample to Bell's theorem, but also on a simple oversight of a freedom of choice in the orientation of a Clifford algebra. What is innovative and original in my counterexample is thus mistaken for an error, at the expense of the professed universality and generality of Bell's theorem.
The aim of the paper is to derive essential elements of quantum mechanics from a parametric structure extending that of traditional mathematical statistics. The main extensions, which also can be motivated from an applied statistics point of view, relate to symmetry, the choice between complementary experiments and hence complementary parametric models, and use of the fact that there for simple systems always is a limited experimental basis that is common to all potential experiments. Concepts related to transformation groups together with the statistical concept of sufficiency are used in the construction of the quantummechanical Hilbert space. The Born formula is motivated through recent analysis by Deutsch and Gill, and is shown to imply the formulae of elementary quantum probability/ quantum inference theory in the simple case. Planck's constant, and the Schroedinger equation are also derived from this conceptual framework. The theory is illustrated by one and by two spin 1/2 particles; in particular, a statistical discussion of Bell's inequality is given. Several paradoxes and related themes of conventional quantum mechanics are briefly discussed in the setting introduced here.
The aim of this note is to attract once again attention of the quantum community to statistical analysis of data which was reported as violating Bell's inequality. This analysis suffers of a number of problems. And the main problem is that rough data is practically unavailable. However, experiments which are not followed by the open access to the rough data have to be considered as with no result. The absence of rough data generates a variety of problems in statistical interpretation of the results of Bell's type experiment. One may hope that this note would stimulate experimenters to create the open access data-base for, e.g., Bell tests. Unfortunately, recently announced experimental loophole-free violation of a Bell inequality using entangled electron spins separated by 1.3 km was not supported by open-access data. Therefore in accordance with our approach "it has no result." The promising data after publication is, of course, a step towards fair analysis quantum experiments. May be this is a consequence of appearance of this preprint, v1. But there are a few questions which would be interesting to clarify before publication (and which we shall discuss in this note).