1. ·

    I don’t know what you mean by “the Gill theorem”. I have proven lots of mathematical theorems in my scientific career. Just give me enough coffee and probably a theorem will come out soon. I have proven versions of Bell’s theorem with stronger assumptions and stronger conclusions. I like them, since they were actually used by the experimenters of the 2015-16 loophole free Bell experiments in order to get p-values robust against time effects in the physics of many repeated Bell trials on the same apparatus. They are the basis of my well known computer challenges to anyone who thinks that Bell’s theorem is false. Nobody calls this particular result “Gill’s theorem”. Like Bell’s theorem itself, the maths is pretty trivial. The physicists later improved it and generalised it, so the version used today is much better than the version I first proved in 2001 in order to win a bet against my friend Luigi Accardi. https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0110137


  2. ·

    Ah, that clarifies Bell’s theorem still being unsolvable by humans after what I as a nobody call Gill’s theorem. Your theorem improvement also still had the underlying problem unsolved. This is thus still the case after many subsequent improvements/alterations to Bell’s theorem.

    And the mores being on only naming a theorem when we get a nontrivial improvement in mathematics. Okay. I misunderstood what you told me. A bit baffling to you call me a “crackpot Bell denier” and state that your contribution proves Bell’s inequalities to be (still) unsolvable. I didn’t know that this being unsolvable was already known by scientists in that field. For if not, then your improvement would not be trivial and thus should have been bestowed the honour of being called Gill’s theorem.

    Well, all Bell adepts are dangerously mad ‘5th-axiom-deniers’. A serious error that Albert Einstein, Schrodinger, and Lewis Carroll pointed out as sciences predictably ended up in Alice in Wunderland.

    As I point out that the main reason for granting this Nobel prize in physics is by the mighty mentally healthy authoritarian autistic oligarchs of the exact sciences to stay in power. The power of what to fund in science with mostly public money.

    Whether these oligarchs know what they are doing or not. Mostly honestly convinced that this belief in the occult is the proven best practice because it incomprehensibly renders results.

    They hope to keep the focus of the herd hypnotically fixed on their peer review judgment on what pseudoscience is and thus what is to be funded. Knowing full well that the herd and even the press will incorrectly conclude the following:


    The Nobel committee has done no such thing. Einstein was proven right from the start that god doesn’t play dice and that spooky actions at a distance on what Bell’s theorem experiments entail aren’t in any way proof of best practice on gods laws. The latter is a dictate of logic being the probandum on the social contract with humanity concerning god i.e. the most fundamental questions. I.e. quite the contrary it leads to incomplete and inconsistent science logically thus misuse of funding, conflicts and war.


  3. ·

  4. ·

Leave a Reply

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