Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

BTR: Bell's theorem refuted

  1. Oct 5, 2004 #1


    User Avatar

    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
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 5, 2004 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
  4. Oct 5, 2004 #3


    User Avatar

    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 (highschool 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.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook