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
Gallery
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.