Comments on: Proposed Macroscopic Test

By: Joy Christian

Joy Christian — Thu, 28 Aug 2025 06:49:16 +0000

Yes, that is correct. In the 1964 proof of his original theorem, Bell used a non-factorizable entangled singlet state as an example, and argued that, since the correlations predicted by this simplest nontrivial quantum state cannot be reproduced by local-realistic theory, it proved that not all statistical predictions of quantum theory can be reproduced by such a local theory. He needed only one example to prove that. But, while he used the entangled singlet state as an example, the statement of his theorem applies to any quantum state.

Nevertheless, as you say, the paper is interesting within the orthodoxy of Bell’s theorem.

By: Sandra

Sandra — Thu, 28 Aug 2025 04:03:12 +0000

I thought one of the main points about Bell is that his argument required non-factorizable states, i.e. entangled states, and ‘showed’ that such states cannot be expressed as products states of hvt, following EPR. It usually goes Bell non-locality -> entangled states, although the converse is not always true.
.
Anyway, I just thought it was interesting.

By: Joy Christian

Joy Christian — Wed, 27 Aug 2025 17:28:25 +0000

Hi Sandra,

This paper is not a challenge to Bell’s theorem. It is written entirely within the standard orthodoxy of Bell’s false theorem. Note that one of its authors, Anton Zeilinger, is a recipient of the 2022 Physics Nobel Prize for “violating” Bell inequalities.

Bell never claimed that only the correlations predicted by *entangled* quantum states can exceed Bell inequalities. He only claimed that no correlations predicted by “classical” or local-realistic theory can exceed Bell inequalities.

In any case, the comprehensive theorem I have proved in my 2018 Royal Society paper covers *All* quantum states, including the unentangled quantum state discussed in the above paper.

By: Sandra

Sandra — Wed, 27 Aug 2025 16:13:38 +0000

Hi Joy,
thought you might be interested in this very recent experimental result: “Violation of Bell inequality with unentangled photons”, Wang et al.
.
Wonder what the bell side will come up with now.

By: Sandra

Sandra — Wed, 31 Jul 2024 13:39:20 +0000

Thank you joy. You are right, the correct notation should be
{R+S} = {RO|O} + {SO|O}
I believe. It was written like that as a short hand, but it might rightly be confusing to someone that knows the notation.
We’ll see what we can do to shorten it, perhaps cut the explanation of what superposition entails mathematically? It is not really essential to understand the argument. Perhaps we could just suggest at the start to watch the video at x1.25 speed eheh.
It’s good to see that the actual refutation part was fine, we wanted to capture that as best as we could.

By: Joy Christian

Joy Christian — Wed, 31 Jul 2024 09:48:51 +0000

Ok. I have watched the video. Nice work! Here are my comments: There is one error in the notation that should be corrected. At several places, you have an equation like

< R + S > = R | O > + S | O >,

or something to that effect. But this cannot be right. The left-hand side, < R + S > , is a scalar quantity whereas the right-hand side is a sum of operator quantities. That makes it a meaningless equation. It should be corrected. Also, at the beginning of the video, one sentence or word seems to be cut off and thus unclear. It may be a good idea to state at the very beginning that there are going to be two parts to this video. I found the video too long. Try to see if you can shorten it by removing some nonessential parts. Some parts from the very beginning can be removed. That will improve the quality and shorten the video. The later technical parts are much better at grabbing attention. There are occasional lull moments or brief pauses. Like in the movies, lull moments can be mood-killers. They can be removed or shortened. If you are going to add links to my blog and papers, then please also add links to Einstein Centre, where my most recent work is advertised: https://einstein-physics.org/

By: Joy Christian

Joy Christian — Tue, 30 Jul 2024 06:29:44 +0000

Hi Sandra, I have rescued your previous comment from spam. I will review the video asap, but please give me a day or two as I am juggling several things at the moment.

By: Sandra

Sandra — Tue, 30 Jul 2024 05:56:14 +0000

My previous commentwent into spam I believe.

Joy, it is finally done!
88bky_6EGhU?si=ovu8ke5RHDBBuatg

Just add this string after YouTube site. (Blog won’t allow me to post full link).

We’re looking forward to your input!

By: Sandra

Sandra — Mon, 29 Jul 2024 22:35:21 +0000

Joy, video’s finally done!

https://youtu.be/88bky_6EGhU?si=ovu8ke5RHDBBuatg

The are still some things we need to add (like links, chapters and so on) but it’s late, we’ll do it tomorrow.

We’re looking forward to your input!

By: Joy Christian

Joy Christian — Wed, 24 Jul 2024 08:53:00 +0000

If the idea is to illustrate non-commutativity arising from the curvature of S2, then you can use holonomy. You can use two different orders of a path on S2 to illustrate that the holonomy angle changes if the order is changed. So, if you first move a vector up from the equator of S2 to the north pole of S2 along one of its great circles, then bring it down to the equator along a different path (i.e., a different great circle), and then move it along the equator to bring it back to the point on the equator where you started. Then change this order. You now move the vector along the equator, then move it up to the north pole, then bring it down to the point where you started. You will find that the vector at the end of these two orders of motion points in different directions. The vector direction flips by 180 degrees. So, the order of motion matters in S2 but not in R.