As noted above,

Paul Snively, who is a theoretical computer scientist, has crystalized the essence of my refutation of Bell's theorem in this beautiful logical sequence:

algebra with operations lacking the closure property mathematical singularities partial functions logical inconsistency.

In the subsequent discussion on his

blog post he summarizes the main point of this sequence as follows:

“Dr. Bell used scalar algebra. Scalar algebra isn’t closed over 3D rotation. Algebras that aren’t closed have singularities. Non-closed algebras having singularities are isomorphic to partial functions. Partial functions yield logical inconsistency via the Curry-Howard Isomorphism. So you cannot use a non-closed algebra in a proof, which Dr. Bell unfortunately did. … This is a

sufficient disproof of Bell’s theorem."

"... you can't insist on using an algebra that doesn't model space correctly and then claim that your "proof" about space [such as non-locality] has meaning."

What is more, not only Bell’s original 1964 "proof", but

ALL of the proofs of

ALL of the Bell-type theorems, including the proofs of their variants and generalizations such as Hardy’s theorem or GHZ theorem, use only scalar algebra.

Therefore all such no-go “proofs” are logically inconsistent (i.e., they are pure nonsense).

And some of you know that I have produced

constructive disproofs of all such theorems, by means of explicit counterexamples, as in

this paper and in

my book.

Sadly, the physics community has been misled by Bell and his followers for over half a century. And some of his ardent followers continue to mislead the physics community by stooping to extreme levels, as noted on

this page of my blog. I personally have paid very heavy price for their misdemeanours. But more significantly they have done a far greater damage to physics itself. The worse part is that these zealots continue to do the damage by employing all sorts of dirty political tactics.