Question Regarding Time-of-Flight Assumptions in Q-Spin EPR Correlations

[anton vrba]

Dear Bryan,

I have a technical question arising from my reading of your paper EPR Correlations Using Quaternion Spin, specifically concerning the Q-spin description and Figure 4.

You state that the common angle $\theta$ implies the two BFF frames are identical except for opposite handedness, with Alice’s spin moving right and Bob’s moving left along the linear momentum axis $Y$. You further explain that the correlation is maintained because the helicity spins both spin axes with identical frequency and in the same direction.

In Sections 2.4 and 2.5, you then derive the correlations and probabilities at the detectors (or filters) $a$ and $b$, which follow naturally from this geometric picture.

What I am struggling to locate in the discussion, however, is an explicit statement or justification of any constraint on the time of flight from the source to the two detectors. In particular, I do not see an argument showing that the derived EPR-type correlations are invariant under unequal propagation times from the origin to $a$ and $b$.

In practical Bell–CHSH experiments, there is no operational way to ensure that the optical path lengths to Alice and Bob are exactly equal (e.g. in terms of wavelengths or phase), and yet the correlations persist. I am therefore wondering whether your framework implicitly assumes equal time of flight, or whether there is an underlying mechanism that renders the correlations independent of this asymmetry.

I would appreciate any clarification you might be willing to offer, or a pointer to where this issue is addressed in the paper or elsewhere in your work.

With best regards,
Anton

[anton vrba]

To explain:

Bryan states:

" The frequencies and LFF for both Alice and Bob must be identical for helicity conservation between a separated EPR pair. Otherwise, they would decohere. After spacelike separation, they remain in phase after both have precessions over many periods. Alice and Bob carry the angle 𝜃 and is the only source of correlation between the two. The two spins are produced as anti-parallel and remain so until they encounter their filters. "

Then derives

Which excludes the precession over many periods. Hence I do not see an argument showing that the derived EPR-type correlations are invariant under unequal propagation times from the origin to $a$ and $b$. Once time of flight is included (10) reads

And all EPR correlations are lost to the delta time of flight as t_{ab} = constant is only guaranteed at zero degree Kelvin in an un-perturbated system.

Alternatively, if t_{ab} = constant is taken as guaranteed, then this would phase shift Fig 7.  

That is the horisontal axis could be -45 to 315 degrees, such phase correction is not necessary in practical Bell-CHSH experiments.

And if one considers the first successful demonstration by Freedman and Clauser 1972  who used a calcium light source with a two photon decay with different wavelength, thus empirical date contradicts your theories

As Feynmann famously said: "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KmimDq4cSU&t=9s

------ Original Message ------

From "anton vrba" <anto...@gmail.com>

To "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" <bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com>; "Bryan Sanctuary" <bryancs...@gmail.com>

Date 1/21/2026 7:29:20 PM

Subject Question Regarding Time-of-Flight Assumptions in Q-Spin EPR Correlations

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Dear Anton,

Thanks for looking at my paper.  Until the debate is over, I will not be answering any questions.  Hope you understand,

Bryan

[Mark Hadley]

Anton,

 I warned you.

If you find mistakes in Bryan's papers he will ignore you and then complain on the forum that nobody has found a fault.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Bell_quantum_found...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CALLw9YxD7avxpJ6k1bBA6XHW5DbAGZB5sO-f4ROedYztW0rVgQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Anton,

I object to that remark for which there is zero evidence that I evade.  I am here debating, defending my position, and I am respecting agreed upon rules.  Do not attempt to infer my motives. You have been wrong from the beginning. As I said, I have no interest in your comments.

Bryan

[anton vrba]

Bryan, in reply to " Until the debate is over, I will not be answering any questions." that is academic cowardice and hiding from a scientific process. Bryan I urge you to watch Richard Feynman https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KmimDq4cSU&t=9s 

Mark, His reply does not surprise me, true to character of his past reactions, but let that pass

We should press Richard that the debate rules must allow statement by others so that the adjudicators are aware of the complete scope of objections and Bryan can muster up third party supporting documents from elsewhere.  These third party statements are not part of the debate and neither Richard nor Bryan need to react on third party statements but they can do so if they wish. Third party statements should be limited to say 4 pages A4 or letter, 1 inch margins and 11pt font size and 1 1/2 line spacing.

This is important as Bryan published a list (about 30 points) why his theories has consequence to research and funding directions and future technologies. 

Bryan says: "The stakes are so high, I cannot be dismissed"  The stakes do not only hinge on the Bell theorem vs Quaternion-Spin, the stakes also hinge on corroborating Q-Spin with experience.  This he ignores or thinks observational facts or not Natural, so far he blocked every argument or question how to integrate Q-Spin to physical theory. The adjudicators must  know these shortcomings for two reasons (1) it is unfair to ask them to invest in time for a debate on a theory with un-answered questions (2) by siding with Bryan they immediately attach their names to Bryan's list, so the list must be also part of the adjudicators briefing documents.

------ Original Message ------

From "Mark Hadley" <sunshine...@googlemail.com>

To "Bryan Sanctuary" <bryancs...@gmail.com>

Cc "anton vrba" <anto...@gmail.com>; "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" <bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com>

Date 1/21/2026 9:11:36 PM

Subject Re: [Bell_quantum_foundations] Re: Question Regarding Time-of-Flight Assumptions in Q-Spin EPR Correlations

[Mark Hadley]

Bryan,

There is overwhelming evidence that you evade. You have been presented with simple mathematical proofs that your work is wrong and your answer is to say that you are not interested in my views.

Let's have the debate now .... about the addition formula. If you are wrong there, then your whole project is wiped out and we can save ourselves a more complicated debate.

All we need to debate is 10 lines of high school maths and the issue is solved.

Are you addressing that or are you evading it as Anton claims 

Mark

[anton vrba]

Bryan, your Q-Spin fails in satellite entanglement experiments.  Look at Fig 3 in the attached article, where Alice and Bobs flight of time is a continuous variable, yet they observe entanglement. Your Q-Spin, equation 10 in EPR Correlations Using Quaternion Spin modified with flight of time fails in such satellite systems and thus Q-Spin is empirically disproved.  

I do not understand why you are wasting everybody's time.  Admit to the scientific process, which I believe you as a professor in chemistry --- and I judge you as highly intelligent --- fully understand. I cannot grasp that a person with a lifelong academic career is discarding the scientific process on grounds of  personal ego, and possible self-delusion.  I apologise, and I am saddened, for being personal and so direct, but I need to spell it out as a favour to you what I and others observe.  I seek an academic based debate not a one sided lecture. 

As you clearly not interested in my views, and I am not interested being dictated to, rest assured all your contribution to this forum will from now on land into the junk folder.

Saddened, but nevertheless with best wishes,

Anton

------ Original Message ------

From "anton vrba" <anto...@gmail.com>

To "Mark Hadley" <sunshine...@googlemail.com>; "Bryan Sanctuary" <bryancs...@gmail.com>

Cc "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" <bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com>; "Richard Gill" <gill...@gmail.com>

Date 1/21/2026 10:12:48 PM

Subject Re: [Bell_quantum_foundations] Re: Question Regarding Time-of-Flight Assumptions in Q-Spin EPR Correlations