I want to apologise for not having my papers out yet.  I should have waited, but my enthusiasm got the better of me and I wanted to share. I naïvely thought that a Journals would be happy to at least peer review a claim of “Resolution of the EPR paradox”,  but so far they say it is outside their journal interests and suggest another.  I’m on my forth and hoping at least for a peer review.  ArXiv, with which I got endorsed, pulled the papers stating they must be accepted for publication first.  I am confident the papers will pass peer review by  any knowledgeable and unbiased physicists who understand the issues.

At this stage I want the papers peer reviewed before they are released.

I have stated before that my work does not discuss much about Bell’s Theorem since I can dismiss it by counter-example.  However if I dismiss it, then somewhere his theorem must have an error.  I am attaching a paper, link at the end, I wrote while waiting for Journals to reply to me. It expresses Bell’s error.  I don’t intend to publish this, although I would put it on arXiv when they finally accept my papers.

I decided to post this because of recent exchanges I have had with Richard Gill and Alexey Алексей Никулов and I wanted to give them my views about Bell’s error. See Bell_quantum_foundations.

This paper is not happy reading for those who believe in Bell and that his theorem ranks highly in importance.

I am sure you will point out my blunder(s). Here is the link to Bell’s Blunder  .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

One reply on “Bell’s Blunder”

  • April 27, 2022 at 5:34 pm

    The paper is happy reading for those who understand Bell’s theorem. Its results are completely compatible with Bell’s. A classical understanding of spin correlations is impossible without assuming non-locality or super-determinism. The correlations can only be understood in a quantum way, and in its own terms, the quantum description satisfies all reasonable locality principles.