Thanks all -- learning from all of your comments. In particular researching Bell's theorem and complex numbers and further exploring Godel's theorem. I wish all of you luck in the final judging.
Cheers,
Jenny
Is Bit It? by Jennifer Nielsen
Aha -- I found the "Disproof of Bell's Theorem" paper -- but there are numerous issues.
Among them:
In his first few equations Christian attempts to establish a local realist interpretation via non-commuting observables--the trouble is his formalism is masking something which is not possible.
In Equation 5 he also shows in his summation that he doesn't really even "get" lambda.
It's my understanding that complex notation should not impact the proof of Bell's theorem; it should hold up in any other established, legitimate write-up of quantum theory.
Cheers! (Just wanted to formalize my opinion on this, if someone can show me a counterexample or another paper I'd be delighted!)
Jenny
Basically the counterexamples in Christian's paper don't hold the same assumptions as Bell's original theorem, so it's not a disproof. Assuming the new assumptions are relevant, what we have here appears to be a hidden variable theory.
2 months later
Hi Jennifer,
Congrats for the Prize.
You and Cristnel Stoica are the only positive news on the ridiculous and shameful "results" of this Essay Contest.
Cheers,
Ch.
6 days later
"In his first few equations Christian attempts to establish a local realist interpretation via non-commuting observables--the trouble is his formalism is masking something which is not possible."
Absolutely wrong. The variables are dichotomous, as clearly explained in this paper.
"It's my understanding that complex notation should not impact the proof of Bell's theorem; it should hold up in any other established, legitimate write-up of quantum theory."
Then you miss the whole point of the proof. Joy gets by classical (non-probabilistic) the same predictions of quantum theory, which Bell's theorem holds to be impossible.
Tom