FrediFizzx wrote:Justo wrote:What you are doing is called prejudice. You assume that I am not sincere and that my attitude is one of denial before what for you seems to be an evident truth.

I am disappointed to learn that, given your attitude, it does not make sense to discuss anything with you.

I have absolutely no personal interest to pursue a blind defense of the consistency of the Bell theorem. I am mostly neutral with respect to Joy's claims because he writes in a language I do not understand, i.e, GA.

I don't assume it. I know that you are not sincere, etc. After almost 10 years of this we know. Been around the block a few times. You give it all away when you don't accept simple math laid before you. It is mathematically impossible for anything to exceed the bound on the Bell inequalities. Do you accept that simple evident truth?

Now, now, Fred, Justo, you guys are talking past each other. Justo, I find you one of the most reasonable Bell-believers I have come across, so let me try to explain what Fred is saying.

It is true that within quantum mechanics one can derive Tsirel'son's bounds on the CHSH correlator (

i.e., a sum of four expectation values) and those bounds are +/-2\/2, not 2. My GA model predicts exactly the same bounds because those bounds have nothing to do with quantum entanglement or nonlocality. They are simply the geometrical signatures of the physical space we live in. It is most unfortunate that most physicists do not know the language of geometric algebra otherwise they would have appreciated what I am saying a very long time ago.

For a simple derivation of Tsirel'son's bounds within my GA model please see Section IX of my paper published in

IEEE Access:

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8836453.

Ok, so what about the Bell-CHSH type inequalities? Well, they have nothing to do with physics. What Fred is saying is a painfully obvious fact. Nothing can "violate" a mathematical inequality such as the Bell-CHSH inequality.

Absolutely nothing. That obviously includes both quantum mechanics and experimental data. So what about the Tsirel'son's bounds? Well, they do not "violate" Bell-CHSH inequalities but

exceed them. Do you see what I am saying? This is what Fred is saying in different words.

Does exceeding the Bell-CHSH inequalities rule out local realism? Obviously not, for several reasons. First, my GA model is manifestly local-realistic and comprehensively predicts exactly the same predictions as quantum mechanics. Second, Bell-CHSH inequalities can be derived without any assumptions of locality or realism, in several different ways. I have done so myself in one of my papers without using GA: See Section 4.2 of my Royal Society paper, for example:

https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.180526.

.