Institutionalized Denial of the Disproof of Bell's Theorem

[FrediFizzx]

@Heine The original Bell inequality has the same problem. But then, of course, you NEVER will understand why Bell-CHSH is junk physics.
.

[Joy Christian]

@Heine The original Bell inequality has the same problem. But then, of course, you NEVER will understand why Bell-CHSH is junk physics.

The best policy is to not see that guy's posts, as Michel has so wisely adapted.
.

[FrediFizzx]

@Heine The original Bell inequality has the same problem. But then, of course, you NEVER will understand why Bell-CHSH is junk physics.

The best policy is to not see that guy's posts, as Michel has so wisely adapted.
.

That is why I used @Heine instead of quoting so that Michel doesn't have to see his post. I have to see everyone's posts just in case.
.

[minkwe]

I will demonstrate some more with the following. Now, for Bell-CHSH we put subscripts on the a's and b's.



Then it is easy to see the dependencies. Now, for QM and the experiments we have,



The 4 terms are independent so a higher bound. This demonstration actually shows that Bell-CHSH is junk physics and pure nonsense. I'll explain if you don't get it.
.

You could have said that in I way that anybody can understand. When you say that nothing can violate the Bell inequality and you don't explain that you changed the bound from 2 to 4, nobody will understand what you're saying because everybody calls the expression Bell inequality when the bound 2.

Justo, in case it is still not clear from Fred and Joy's explanation, here is a simple way to look at it:

Just because two people use the same symbol in two different expressions does not mean the two symbols represent the same thing.

In a Bell test experiment, the terms in the expression (1)

1:

DO NOT mean the same thing as the terms in the equation

2:

Rather, the terms in expression 1, mean the same thing as the terms in equation (3)

3:

When we say nothing can violate the Bell inequality, we mean that if you are consistent in your use of symbols and don't substitute values obtained under one meaning, into expressions that expect values obtained under a different meaning then you can't exceed the inequality.

If I say
1 + 1 = 2.

Everyone knows that you can't claim to violate that equation, by claiming that

1 cup of coffee + 1 cube of sugar = 1 drink.

When we do mathematics, we assume that you are using symbols consistently. That is why I take issue with the notation in your paper because it fails to distinguish notationally quite different things and then ends up conflating them and missing very important distinctions. This is not simply an issue of "notational preference"! I take a similar issue with the notation used in Gill's Statistical Science paper (See equations 4 & 6). This issue is very common among Bell believers. It's like a whole bunch of people who should know better suddenly start playing fast and loose with notation as if to pull the wool over the eyes of those not paying attention. For now, I'll assume it is an oversight and not intentional subterfuge. I'm sure Richard is about to argue that the only difference between the two equations is that one represents LR and the other represents QM. But before he does that, realize that what we are talking about does not depend on anything related to the mechanism/physical process generating the data. It has to do simply with how the terms for the expression are calculated from the data, not how the data is generated. Look at my scenarios 2 and 4 again if this last point is not clear, there was a lot going on in my argument that you may have realized. It is obvious from the bounds for my scenarios 2 and 4 that it is the method of calculating the terms from the data that determines the upper bound, not the physical process producing the outcomes. Now look at Richards equations 4 and 6. He is obviously representing different things with the same symbols and ending up getting confused. Or was it intentional? I don't know.

Therefore every intellectually honest scientist should question when notation is chosen that blurs and obscures the very differences which are responsible for differences in the upper bounds!

[Justo]

I will demonstrate some more with the following. Now, for Bell-CHSH we put subscripts on the a's and b's.



Then it is easy to see the dependencies. Now, for QM and the experiments we have,



The 4 terms are independent so a higher bound. This demonstration actually shows that Bell-CHSH is junk physics and pure nonsense. I'll explain if you don't get it.
.

You could have said that in I way that anybody can understand. When you say that nothing can violate the Bell inequality and you don't explain that you changed the bound from 2 to 4, nobody will understand what you're saying because everybody calls the expression Bell inequality when the bound 2.

Justo, in case it is still not clear from Fred and Joy's explanation, here is a simple way to look at it:

Just because two people use the same symbol in two different expressions does not mean the two symbols represent the same thing.

In a Bell test experiment, the terms in the expression (1)

1:

DO NOT mean the same thing as the terms in the equation

2:

Rather, the terms in expression 1, mean the same thing as the terms in equation (3)

3:

When we say nothing can violate the Bell inequality, we mean that if you are consistent in your use of symbols and don't substitute values obtained under one meaning, into expressions that expect values obtained under a different meaning then you can't exceed the inequality.

If I say
1 + 1 = 2.

Everyone knows that you can't claim to violate that equation, by claiming that

1 cup of coffee + 1 cube of sugar = 1 drink.

When we do mathematics, we assume that you are using symbols consistently. That is why I take issue with the notation in your paper because it fails to distinguish notationally quite different things and then ends up conflating them and missing very important distinctions. This is not simply an issue of "notational preference"! I take a similar issue with the notation used in Gill's Statistical Science paper (See equations 4 & 6). This issue is very common among Bell believers. It's like a whole bunch of people who should know better suddenly start playing fast and loose with notation as if to pull the wool over the eyes of those not paying attention. For now, I'll assume it is an oversight and not intentional subterfuge. I'm sure Richard is about to argue that the only difference between the two equations is that one represents LR and the other represents QM. But before he does that, realize that what we are talking about does not depend on anything related to the mechanism/physical process generating the data. It has to do simply with how the terms for the expression are calculated from the data, not how the data is generated. Look at my scenarios 2 and 4 again if this last point is not clear, there was a lot going on in my argument that you may have realized. It is obvious from the bounds for my scenarios 2 and 4 that it is the method of calculating the terms from the data that determines the upper bound, not the physical process producing the outcomes. Now look at Richards equations 4 and 6. He is obviously representing different things with the same symbols and ending up getting confused. Or was it intentional? I don't know.

Therefore every intellectually honest scientist should question when notation is chosen that blurs and obscures the very differences which are responsible for differences in the upper bounds!

@minkwe I think I know what you mean because we have a long discussion before. However, I think that it is very hard to understand you Guys. For instance, in minkwe's eq 2 and 3 he used the same symbols to represent different things. Even though he explicitly says they are different, another person reading this for the first time will end up scratching his head.

I would explain the whole situation like this: there is only one experiment that we all know and which bound (or value) we want to predict.
Bell fans say the bound is 2 while Bell deniers say the bound is 4. End of the story.

Furthermore, both sides claim the result should be evident. minkwe and I discussed it. I claim that the experimental data (if Bell hypotheses were correct) can be reduced in such a way that the value is 2 while minkwe says that is impossible and the value should be 4. We could not reach an agreement.

If we take the upper bound to be 4 then it is evident that nothing can violate the inequality.
Finally, I do not agree with the word "cheating" because that would mean that scientists are lying and are not merely mistaken.

[minkwe]

At this point, it is also fitting to close this rabbit trail and tie it back to what Joy was saying at the beginning to Justo concerning the additivity of expectation values.

Bell derived



In order to complete this derivation, he made some implicit assumptions about the data from a Bell-test experiment. Those assumptions can be interpreted two ways:
1 - The terms in the inequality represent measurements on separate distinct series of particles, and the four 2xN lists of outcomes can be reduced to a single 4xN table of outcomes.
2 - The terms in the inequality represent counterfactual measurements on the same set of particles.

Justo claims it is (1) that Bell used, despite Bell clearly appearing to use (2) in his original paper. Looks like wishful thinking to me but note that if (1) is true, then there is no practical difference between the two interpretations because to derive the inequality, everything needs to go through a 4xN spreadsheet (ie, four functions) anyway. But we know now that (1) is False. Therefore whether Bell liked it or not, knew it or not, he effectively used (2) to derive his inequality

Bell then proceeded to substitute values from QM into the expression to generate what he called a "violation".



The problem is that is not a meaningful quantity in QM if the terms in that expression are supposed to mean the same thing as the terms in . This is because interpreted in the same way as implied by Bell's own derivation, the terms represent incompatible measurements that do not commute. Therefore, Bell made a mistake in using the linear combination of those expectations to calculate .

In other words, Bell did not properly calculate the correct for the terms he had derived in his inequality. He naively assumed, just like von Neuman, that he could just add them up and it will be fine. In his words about von Neumann:

It was not the objective measurable predictions of quantum mechanics which ruled out hidden variables. It was the arbitrary assumption of a particular (and impossible) relation between the results of incompatible measurements either of which might be made on a given occasion but only one of which can in fact be made.

Yet the von Neuman proof, if you actually come to grips with it, falls apart in your hands! There is nothing to it. It’s not just flawed, it’s silly. If you look at the assumptions it made, it does not hold up for a moment. It’s the work of a mathematician, and he makes assumptions that have a mathematical symmetry to them. When you translate them into terms of physical disposition, they’re nonsense. You may quote me on that: the proof of von Neuman is not merely false but foolish.

Looking at my Scenario 4, we have a 4xN spreadsheet of numbers, all real experimental data, with no counterfactuals. We also have particle pairs generated in the singlet state. Yet, for scenario 4, we have



We can contrast this with my Scenario 2, where we have four 2xN spreadsheets of numbers, all real experimental data, no counterfactuals, with singlet state particle pairs, resulting in


Now we see very clearly the problem. We have two expressions, both correct, representing two different scenarios, both from QM, that disagree with each other. Bell used to compare with . This was the mistake. Doing so is equivalent to assuming that you can just pick individual terms from a different scenario and add them up and have the correct result. Not so, as is now evident from comparing Scenarios 2 and 4.

All of this could have been avoided had Bell been taught proper mathematical notation as a student. 60 years of physics wasted for a very naive mistake, and I'm not joking. I know what you may be thinking -- "..., Bell could not have been so stupid, he must have been doing something smarter than it looks. What about all those smart physicists who have been thinking about this for years, etc, etc ...".

My answer to this would be, don't be so sure. If you understand the issue and it makes sense then truth is not democratic. If the argument makes sense and you reject it because "other smart people" don't get it yet, then you are not a free thinker.

Oh, and BTW, for the remaining Bell believers, what type of non-locality is it that you believe in, that QM is unable to "violate" for scenario 4? There does seem to be a very careful orchestration of this so-called nonlocality requiring a lot of mathematical and notational trickery to achieve. Some non-locality that.

[minkwe]

@minkwe I think I know what you mean because we have a long discussion before. However, I think that it is very hard to understand you Guys. For instance, in minkwe's eq 2 and 3 he used the same symbols to represent different things. Even though he explicitly says they are different, another person reading this for the first time will end up scratching his head.

Don't be silly, I'm using it because I'm trying to explain why they appear similar but are different, in order to reach Bell believers who I'm aware do not understand the difference. That is why I explain clearly what the differences are and why it is misleading to not use proper notation. Surely you understand how arguments are formulated. The only people scratching their heads would be those who did not bother to read what I wrote and just took it out of context.

Furthermore, both sides claim the result should be evident. minkwe and I discussed it. I claim that the experimental data (if Bell hypotheses were correct) can be reduced in such a way that the value is 2 while minkwe says that is impossible and the value should be 4. We could not reach an agreement.

Yes you did not agree with me. But you never afforded me the courtesy of an explanation of why you disagree. I always try to explain why I disagree with a point of view because I don't believe it is useful to say I disagree, without having a reason for doing so. I don't disagree unless I have a reason. I guess I was wrong to assume that everyone else approaches discussions that way. Your argument was probably too good for my consumption?

If we take the upper bound to be 4 then it is evident that nothing can violate the inequality.

That's not it. What we are saying is that The cannot violate the appropriate inequality for scenario 4 which is . Nothing can, and cannot violate the appropriate inequality for scenario 2 which is . Nothing can. Your statement seems to imply that our argument is that can't violate , which is a misrepresentation of our position. Our position is that failure to use proper notation leads Bell believers to compare the QM prediction from one scenario with the inequality from a completely different scenario. Your last statement suggests that perhaps you haven't understood the point.

[minkwe]

Earlier in the thread, you said
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=482&start=80#p13877

...
But then a bunch of people rise and say, obviously what Bell assumed is incorrect because the cards were not extracted in the order he naively assumed.
That is exactly the same situation with the "only four values" issue. What Bell did in his derivation is to reorder the experimental data. Of course, one could question if that is indeed possible
...

Are you willing to explain what you mean by the underlined text above. At that point, it appeared you did not know if it was possible to reorder the experimental data. But now it seems you are sure that it is possible. Just curious.

[Justo]

Earlier in the thread, you said
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=482&start=80#p13877

...
But then a bunch of people rise and say, obviously what Bell assumed is incorrect because the cards were not extracted in the order he naively assumed.
That is exactly the same situation with the "only four values" issue. What Bell did in his derivation is to reorder the experimental data. Of course, one could question if that is indeed possible
...

Are you willing to explain what you mean by the underlined text above. At that point, it appeared you did not know if it was possible to reorder the experimental data. But now it seems you are sure that it is possible. Just curious.

All I have to say about it I said in section four of the paper "A Note on Bell's Theorem Logical Consistency". It basically means that if non-conspiratorial hidden variables exist, then it is posible obtain an expression like A1B1-A1B2+A2B1+A2B2 with actual experimental data.
I can't say more, if you have a concrete objection to some equation on that paper I guess I could answer but I don't want to dicuss generallities. We already discussed that.

[FrediFizzx]

Earlier in the thread, you said
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=482&start=80#p13877

...
But then a bunch of people rise and say, obviously what Bell assumed is incorrect because the cards were not extracted in the order he naively assumed.
That is exactly the same situation with the "only four values" issue. What Bell did in his derivation is to reorder the experimental data. Of course, one could question if that is indeed possible
...

Are you willing to explain what you mean by the underlined text above. At that point, it appeared you did not know if it was possible to reorder the experimental data. But now it seems you are sure that it is possible. Just curious.

All I have to say about it I said in section four of the paper "A Note on Bell's Theorem Logical Consistency". It basically means that if non-conspiratorial hidden variables exist, then it is possible obtain an expression like A1B1-A1B2+A2B1+A2B2 with actual experimental data.
I can't say more, if you have a concrete objection to some equation on that paper I guess I could answer but I don't want to discuss generalities. We already discussed that.

Nope! You're wrong as shown thoroughly in the previous posts and here.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.28311.91047/2
.

[Gordon Watson]

I will demonstrate some more with the following. Now, for Bell-CHSH we put subscripts on the a's and b's.



Then it is easy to see the dependencies. Now, for QM and the experiments we have,



The 4 terms are independent so a higher bound. This demonstration actually shows that Bell-CHSH is junk physics and pure nonsense. I'll explain if you don't get it.
.

You could have said that in I way that anybody can understand. When you say that nothing can violate the Bell inequality and you don't explain that you changed the bound from 2 to 4, nobody will understand what you're saying because everybody calls the expression Bell inequality when the bound 2.

But do you now understand the point? The first inequality above can never be violated by anything. The second inequality is what the experimentalists inevitably use and claim that they have "violated" the first inequality. That is cheating.

A different way to say the same thing is to say that the first inequality cannot be derived without assuming the additivity of expectation values: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.02876.pdf
.

I can of course derive the Bell inequalities without using the expression



Bell used it in his 1964 paper. That does not mean it is the only way to derive the theorem. So many amateurs go straight to his terse original paper, thinks they found a mistake, and thus declare the entire theorem false. Bell was a brilliant mind, but at that point in time not a very good pedagogue. In the almost 60 years that have passed a lot of other brilliant minds has of course come up with a lot of other (and more accessible) proofs.

I'd welcome a demonstration and more details re your claims. I trust you realise that Bell died on the horns of an unresolved dilemma?
.

[Justo]

I'd welcome a demonstration and more details re your claims. I trust you realise that Bell died on the horns of an unresolved dilemma?
.

Can you specify what the dilemma would be?

[Justo]

Well, I'm not posting specifically for minkwe to read. There are other dimwits on this forum too, you know.

Guys, thank you for letting me hanging around here, I am really having fun . But do not misinterpret me, I respect you all. I am not Richard Gill.

[Gordon Watson]

I'd welcome a demonstration and more details re your claims. I trust you realise that Bell died on the horns of an unresolved dilemma?
.

Can you specify what the dilemma would be?

.

(i) ‘I cannot say that action at a distance [AAD] is required in physics. I can say that you cannot get away with no AAD. You cannot separate off what happens in one place and what happens in another. Somehow they have to be described and explained jointly. Well, that just the fact of the situation; the Einstein program fails [sic]. ... it might be that we have to learn to accept not so much AAD, but [the] inadequacy of no AAD.’ (ii) ‘And that is the dilemma. We are led by analysing this situation to admit that in somehow distant things are connected, or at least not disconnected.’ (iii) ‘... I step back from asserting that there is AAD, I say only that you cannot get away with locality. You cannot explain things by events in their neighbourhood. But I am careful not to assert that there is AAD,’ after Bell (1990:5-6,7,13); emphasis added.

Bell, J. S. (1990). Transcript of a talk, 22 January 1990, CERN Geneva, by A. Driessen and A. Suarez (1997). "Indeterminism and nonlocality. Mathematical Undecidability, Quantum Nonlocality & the Question of the Existence of God": 1-14.
.

[FrediFizzx]

Well, I'm not posting specifically for minkwe to read. There are other dimwits on this forum too, you know.

Guys, thank you for letting me hanging around here, I am really having fun . But do not misinterpret me, I respect you all. I am not Richard Gill.

You're welcome. Glad you are having fun. But remember that you are posting on a "Bell was wrong" forum. Of which we have overwhelming proof. And the pièce de ré​sis​tance

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.28311.91047/2

And... that is another reason why Bell's theory is junk physics.
.

[Joy Christian]

.
The institutionalized denial of the disproof of Bell's theorem continues unabated even after fourteen and a half years.

Here is a summary of my latest effort to undo the damage done to physics by Bell and his blind army of followers: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.21753.39529.
.

[gill1109]

.
The institutionalized denial of the disproof of Bell's theorem continues unabated even after fourteen and a half years.

Here is a summary of my latest effort to undo the damage done to physics by Bell and his blind army of followers: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.21753.39529.

Since Bell's theorem as a mathematical theorem has not been disproved, I fear that the institutionalized denial of the disproof will continue for many more years to come.

I do not approve of "institutionalized denial". Caroline Thompson suffered for many years because of it. She gave valid criticism of past experiments, and she worked out a version of the detection loophole model of Pearle, which had nice physical aspects - it was not a piece of pure maths. By the way, she was initially trained as a statistician.

Aspect's experiment became an icon, and it became blasphemy to discuss its defects. The Establishment did not allow discussion. Yet those defects were very well known to the specialists in the field and they worked very hard for decennia to do experiments which did not have those defects.

See https://rpubs.com/gill1109/EPRB23 for a discussion of how early simulations of Chantal Roth and of Michel were actually simple extensions of Caroline Thompson's "chaotic rotating ball" model. You just needed to make the chaotic rotating ball a little bit more fuzzy and you got exactly the same model.

https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9611037
The Chaotic Ball: An Intuitive Analogy for EPR Experiments
Caroline H. Thompson (Department of Computer Science, University of Wales Aberystwyth)
Actual realisations of EPR experiments do not demonstrate non-locality. A model is presented that should enable non-specialists as well as specialists to understand how easy it is to find realistic explanations for the observations. The model also suggests new areas where realistic ("hidden-variable") models can give valid predictions whilst quantum mechanics fails. It offers straightforward explanations for some anomalies that Aspect was unable to account for, providing perhaps the first experimental evidence that a hidden-variable theory can be superior to quantum mechanics. The apparent success of quantum mechanics in predicting results is shown to be largely due to the use of unjustifiable and biased analysis of the data. Data that has been discarded because it did not lead to a valid Bell's test may give further evidence that hidden variables exist.
Found.Phys.Lett. 9 (1996) 357-382
DOI: 10.1007/BF02186307
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02186307

[Joy Christian]

.
The institutionalized denial of the disproof of Bell's theorem continues unabated even after fourteen and a half years.

Here is a summary of my latest effort to undo the damage done to physics by Bell and his blind army of followers: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.21753.39529.

Since Bell's theorem as a mathematical theorem has not been disproved, ...

Bell's theorem is not a mathematical theorem. It is a physical argument based on many implicit and explicit assumptions. The mathematical part of Bell's theorem, namely the inequality named after him, was proved one hundred and eleven years before Bell's 1964 paper by George Boole and it has nothing to do with any EPR-Bohm type physical experiments.

One of the assumptions Bell relied on to make his outrageous claims was his assumption of the additivity of expectation values. This assumption does not hold for any hidden variable theory, and therefore Bell's argument is not a valid argument against any hidden variable theory. For a summary of explanation of this, see Section II of my third IEEE Access paper:

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9418997 (open access).

Note that in his recent talk at AGACSE 2021, Prof. Anthony Lasenby cited your comment paper in IEEE Access but failed to cite or mention the fact that I have thoroughly discredited your comment paper in my above reply, which is also published in IEEE Access. This kind of discriminatory citing is an example of the institutionalized denial of the disproof of Bell's theorem.
.

[gill1109]

.
The institutionalized denial of the disproof of Bell's theorem continues unabated even after fourteen and a half years.

Here is a summary of my latest effort to undo the damage done to physics by Bell and his blind army of followers: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.21753.39529.

Since Bell's theorem as a mathematical theorem has not been disproved, ...

Bell's theorem is not a mathematical theorem. It is a physical argument based on many implicit and explicit assumptions. The mathematical part of Bell's theorem, namely the inequality named after him, was proved one hundred and eleven years before Bell's 1964 paper by George Boole and it has nothing to do with any EPR-Bohm type physical experiments.

One of the assumptions Bell relied on to make his outrageous claims was his assumption of the additivity of expectation values. This assumption does not hold for any hidden variable theory, and therefore Bell's argument is not a valid argument against any hidden variable theory. For a summary of explanation of this, see Section II of my third IEEE Access paper:

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9418997 (open access).

Note that in his recent talk at AGACSE 2021, Prof. Anthony Lasenby cited your comment paper in IEEE Access but failed to cite or mention the fact that I have thoroughly discredited your comment paper in my above reply, which is also published in IEEE Access. This kind of discriminatory citing is an example of the institutionalized denial of the disproof of Bell's theorem.
.

Joy, you fail to mention (again and again) that I believe I have "thoroughly discredited" paper after paper by you. Lasenby obviously believes that you failed to thoroughly discredit my comment on your IEEE Access paper on Bertlmann's socks. In fact, he confirmed my own findings. OK, he didn't cite your response. You didn't refer, in your talk, to my invited papers (some still under review) discrediting your four main recent publications (I forget the journal a few years ago, then IEEE 2x, then RSOS). That's called "discriminatory citing". It is an example of your unshakable conviction that you never ever make a mistake. There is a smaller group of scientists who remain unshakable convinced that Bell was wrong. I would compare them to Covid-deniers. But obviously, you wouldn't.

Of course, I am merely a third rate statistician and you are a well-known physicist of the stature of Dirac and 't Hooft, who doesn't care about mathematics or mathematicians.

[Joy Christian]

.
The institutionalized denial of the disproof of Bell's theorem continues unabated even after fourteen and a half years.

Here is a summary of my latest effort to undo the damage done to physics by Bell and his blind army of followers: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.21753.39529.

Since Bell's theorem as a mathematical theorem has not been disproved, ...

Bell's theorem is not a mathematical theorem. It is a physical argument based on many implicit and explicit assumptions. The mathematical part of Bell's theorem, namely the inequality named after him, was proved one hundred and eleven years before Bell's 1964 paper by George Boole and it has nothing to do with any EPR-Bohm type physical experiments.

One of the assumptions Bell relied on to make his outrageous claims was his assumption of the additivity of expectation values. This assumption does not hold for any hidden variable theory, and therefore Bell's argument is not a valid argument against any hidden variable theory. For a summary of explanation of this, see Section II of my third IEEE Access paper:

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9418997 (open access).

Note that in his recent talk at AGACSE 2021, Prof. Anthony Lasenby cited your comment paper in IEEE Access but failed to cite or mention the fact that I have thoroughly discredited your comment paper in my above reply, which is also published in IEEE Access. This kind of discriminatory citing is an example of the institutionalized denial of the disproof of Bell's theorem.
.

Joy, you fail to mention (again and again) that I believe I have "thoroughly discredited" paper after paper by you. Lasenby obviously believes that you failed to thoroughly discredit my comment on your IEEE Access paper on Bertlmann's socks. OK, he didn't cite your response. You didn't refer, in your talk, to my invited papers (some still under review) discrediting your four main recent publications. That's called "discriminatory citing". It is an example of your unshakable conviction that you never ever make a mistake. There is a smaller group of scientists who remain unshakable convinced that Bell was wrong. I would compare them to Covid-deniers. But obviously, you wouldn't.

You, who does not even understand the difference between a bivector and a multivector, discredited my work? You are completely delusional. Check out the number of your extremely elementary mathematical mistakes I have exposed, month after month, year after year: https://www.academia.edu/38423874/Refut ... ls_Theorem.

It is unfortunate that Lasenby has put his name on line. I will be exposing his mistakes in my response too. He will be sorry that he ever paid attention to your mistaken mathematics.

I have already responded to some of Lasenby's mistakes here: https://www.academia.edu/43165082/Reply ... Mechanics_

I have repeatedly pointed out that all of your papers criticizing my work are junk papers. Your arguments have nothing whatsoever to do with what I have presented in my papers.
.