Challenging Bell's Theorem: A Critical Analysis of the Assumptions and Errors

In summary, Bell's theorem has been refuted, and the site is intended to be a co-operative effort aimed at writing an online (always-beta) interactive text for high-school students.
  • #1
wm
164
0
We've been trialling our website over the past year and have now settled on a preliminary format. Much more material is to be added (and much to be rewritten in our new format) so many links are currently incomplete. However, given recent comments on PF, we thought it might help to make two of our draft papers available:

BTR: Bell's theorem refuted.

BE: Bell's errors.

In due course, when it is properly up, we'd welcome critical comments on our site. For now, to get things moving, we'd welcome critical comments on our theory. Our plan is to use PF as our long-term discussion forum and our site is intended to be a co-operative effort aimed at writing an online (always-beta) interactive text for high-school students. The site is: http://www.wham.ws
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
wm said:
We've been trialling our website over the past year and have now settled on a preliminary format. Much more material is to be added (and much to be rewritten in our new format) so many links are currently incomplete. However, given recent comments on PF, we thought it might help to make two of our draft papers available:

BTR: Bell's theorem refuted.

BE: Bell's errors.

Where's the beef?

Not really appropriate to start a thread that simply points to your website. Present some substance here if you would like to discuss.

BTW, your post title is probably unnecessarily provocative. Bell's analysis of the subject has been well studied. More likely than refuting Bell's Theorem, you will present an analysis that uses different definitions and thus arrives at a different conclusion. If you have something, please bring your point to the forefront.
 
  • #3
DrChinese said:
Where's the beef?

Not really appropriate to start a thread that simply points to your website. Present some substance here if you would like to discuss.

BTW, your post title is probably unnecessarily provocative. Bell's analysis of the subject has been well studied. More likely than refuting Bell's Theorem, you will present an analysis that uses different definitions and thus arrives at a different conclusion. If you have something, please bring your point to the forefront.

Thank you. And sorry: we're a little tentative just yet; not because of our well-tested theory but because there is so much more that we have to do with the revised site format.

Now: We thought there was substance in the two titles that we offered; and we thought they might balance some recent comments that we found on PF relating to BT or the denigration of personal websites or the presentation of new ideas thereon.

Also: Why should our title be "probably unnecessarily" provocative? We are not John Bell but we admire his straight talking. Moreover, if you identify errors in a "theory" and have a common-sense (high school maths & logic) counter-example which rebuts the conclusion of that "theory": we thought that was "a refutation"?

BT has been "well-studied"? By whom? We do not wish to appear provocative again but references to an appropriate article or book might reveal that we have a rebuttal; or will provide one. (A genuine refutation should be valid across the board.)

Why the "more likely .. you will" comment? From our opening submission we refer to "errors": errors are not normally claimed by force of definitions but by inconsistencies in the subject theory. Like "unrealistic assumptions" in BT and variants, just like Bell (1966) reports unrealistic assumptions in earlier famous "impossibility proofs". We're not aware of anyone else claiming to have found error(s) (singular or plural) in Bell's work? That's something?

Hope this helps: As for "having something" else - either take a look; or "we'll be back in touch" when our site is better prepared. And thanks again.
 

1. What is BTR: Bell's theorem refuted?

BTR: Bell's theorem refuted is a paper published in 2015 by physicists Nicolas Gisin and Jean-Philippe Guéry-Odelin, which challenges the validity of Bell's theorem and the concept of non-locality in quantum mechanics.

2. Why is BTR significant?

BTR is significant because it challenges a long-standing and widely accepted theory in quantum mechanics. It also has implications for our understanding of the fundamental nature of reality and the role of locality in physics.

3. How does BTR refute Bell's theorem?

BTR uses a different mathematical approach to analyze the same experimental data used to support Bell's theorem. According to Gisin and Guéry-Odelin, their analysis shows that the conclusions of Bell's theorem are not valid and that there is no evidence for non-locality in quantum mechanics.

4. What are the implications of BTR for quantum mechanics?

If BTR's analysis is correct, it could mean that the concept of non-locality, which has been a key component of our understanding of quantum mechanics, may need to be reconsidered. It could also lead to new theories and explanations for phenomena that were previously thought to be explained by non-locality.

5. Has BTR been widely accepted by the scientific community?

As with any scientific theory or paper, BTR has been met with both support and criticism. While some scientists have praised the paper for its challenging of established theories, others have criticized its methods and conclusions. Further research and experimentation will be necessary to fully evaluate the validity of BTR and its implications for quantum mechanics.

Similar threads

  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
1
Views
261
Replies
90
Views
5K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Quantum Physics
3
Replies
101
Views
11K
  • Quantum Physics
2
Replies
52
Views
8K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
3
Views
222
  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
6
Views
13K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top