Bell's theorem and inequality are refuted, and Bell's dilemma is resolved, by the commonsense theory Bell expected

[Gordon Watson]

.
The 6-page PDF is freely available at https://www.academia.edu/s/4d1cdeaea5 Critical and other comments are welcome. Thanks, Gordon.

Abstract: With Zeilinger (2011:194), “We do not assume the preexistence of observed values.” Instead, we work with commonsense local realism (CLR). CLR is the union of commonsense local causality (no influence propagates superluminally, after Einstein) and commonsense physical realism (some existents change interactively, after Bohr).

With these principles, and fully agreeing with QM, we use Bell's initial statistical formulation to derive the expectation for the much-studied experiment in Bell (1964). So, since Bell's famous “impossibility” theorem (BT) declares our result impossible, our successful derivation refutes BT directly and irrefutably.

Then, since Bell's famous inequality (BI) is the basis for BT, we refute BI similarly. Taking math to be the best logic and letting it do most of the talking, we show that BI is a consequence of Bell's erroneous instance-busting: Bell busts instances to create new instances and (thus) false expectation values. So, since these expectations are clearly incorrect, BI and Bell's instance-busting are refuted.

Finally, CLR delivers the “big new development” that Bell expected. Correcting the elementary (but critical) defects in Bell's analysis, CLR leads to a commonsense quantum theory (CQT), with Bell's AAD dilemma resolved. CQT thus shows that relativity and QM are compatible.

[Gordon Watson]

.
In equation (9), I show that E(a,b), the expectation over the angle (a,b) is the sum of the related expectations.

This leads quickly to the refutation of Bell's theorem.

Does this clash with Joy Christian's demonstration that "Bell's theorem is based on circular reasoning and thus a fundamentally flawed argument. It unjustifiably assumes the additivity of expectation values for dispersion-free states"?

I ask because my summation appears to be a valid result for the integral -- in Eqn (2) in Bell (1964) -- that Bell rejects as a consequence of his theorem.

Thanks, Gordon