Reply to "Comment on 'Bell's Theorem Versus Local Realism in a Quaternionic Model of Physical Space'"
arXiv:2202.05615 · doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3146421
Abstract
In this paper, I respond to a critique of one of my papers previously published in this journal, entitled "Bell's Theorem Versus Local Realism in a Quaternionic Model of Physical Space." That paper presents a local-realistic model of quantum correlations based on a quaternionic 3-sphere, taken as a physical space in which we are confined to perform all our experiments. The critique, on the other hand, considers two entirely different models within a flat Euclidean space, neither related to my quaternionic 3-sphere model. It then criticizes its own flat space models and claims that it has thereby criticized the model presented in my paper. Along the way, without providing evidence or proof, it claims that the results in my paper are based on mistakes. I demonstrate that there are no mistakes of any kind in my paper. On the contrary, I bring out a number of elementary mathematical and conceptual mistakes from the critique and the critiques it relies on.
arXiv comment12 pages, 4 figures. This paper is published in response to arXiv:2103.00225 [quant-ph]
References in corpus (9)
- Exactly Soluble Sector of Quantum Gravity
- Quantum correlations are weaved by the spinors of the Euclidean primitives
- Bell's Theorem Versus Local Realism in a Quaternionic Model of Physical Space
- Macroscopic Observability of Spinorial Sign Changes under 2pi Rotations
- Dr. Bertlmann's Socks in the Quaternionic World of Ambidextral Reality
- Local origins of quantum correlations rooted in geometric algebra
- Reply to "Comment on 'Dr. Bertlmann's Socks in a Quaternionic World of Ambidextral Reality'"
- Refutation of Richard Gill's Argument Against my Disproof of Bell's Theorem
- Comment on "Bell's Theorem Versus Local Realism in a Quaternionic Model of Physical Space"