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
One reply on “Bell’s Blunder”
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.