Challenge: Failing to make a choice is a failure of physics: vectors vs bivectors

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Dear Richard, and others, and forward at will,

OPEN LETTER

Despite the fact that we all agree that Fred Diether does not know what he is doing, Richard, you still give him the old party line to mislead him further.  Bell failed.  Bell did not know that spin has duality, like other quantum variables, and the extra correlation between two bivectors resolves the EPR paradox.  I have asked you to put into press your objections to my disproof of Bell's Theorem, and repudiation of the SM.  You are being an ostridge  when you should realize the Bell era is almost over.  Please read the following ONE PARAGRAPH, which is clear and to the point.  If you wish to support Bell, you MUST espress why my discussion below is wrong, or stop believing in your statement about Bell repeatedly expressed like a parrot .   

The same is true with John Clauser, Alain Aspect, and Anton Zeilinger apparently thinking they are too important, perhaps, so they can ignore my work.  Zielinger is on this forum and all are failing as scientists because they are more interested in their legacy, rather than the truth.  They continue to promote non-locality and mislead the public with talks. They will not capitulate on principle.  But they are unable to express why my ideas are wrong.

 I wrote to Lee Smolin.  The Perimeter Institute is supported by my taxes. But their big push, 10 or 15 years to get to the bottom of the quantum foundations has led to little.  The Perimeter Institute is mostly interested in funding, their own self-importance, and use too much hype rather than results.  They have failed. But Lee too seems to have a closed mind ,  (which surprised me). I had thought him a forward thinker but misdirected by the SM.  I also see Andrei Khrennikov is on this forum, and despite the fact that in 2009 in Vaxjo Andrei expressed interest in my bivector idea about a 2D spin, why is he silent now?     He does a lot to advance the foundations, but without responding to my papers, he is ignoring a different paradigm which resolves most of the issues with the foundations.  I am sure Andrei knows what is going on, so why is he apprehensive about putting any objections to my work into the press?  Or does he have no objections? It is dishonest to ignore competing theories. I can only surmise Andrei too does not want to rock the boat either and to preserve the status quo--too bad. 

With four papers peer-reviewed in the last two years, showing that the SM should be replaced by the Bivector SM, gone are the days you can dismiss me as a quantum crackpot chemist with no credibility.  So I challenge Clauser, Aspert, Zeilinger, Smolin, Bennett, and Khrennikov and all others here, to take a few minutes and consider the difference of using Clifford Algebra Cl(2,2) (as Penrose used in 1969) rather than the usual Cl(1,3) that Dirac used.  Dirac made the wrong choice. Prove me wrong.

I have found the classical origin of spin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  All others failed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is a Holy Grail.  But you all still postulate spin as an abstract fermion.  I resolved the negative energy of Dirac's solution. I avoided baryogenesis.  I have shown that spin is not quantum, but a classical bivector in 3D space with a quantum limit.  Spin is a real object not an abstract vector on a Hilbert space.  I have shown the origin of parity is a mixture of reflections. I find that spin has a L and R hand and a double helix of mass.  It is not a point particle. There are no neutrinos (none have been detected) and parity is not violated (Wu's data is fine, her interpretation is wrong).  Spin is physical, real, and a spinning plane. I found the classical-quantum correspondence for spin. Everything makes sense.  But you are reluctant to accept a second solution to the Dirac equation.

The difference is huge, but you are all silent because you balk that the last 100 years of fermions as fundamental, is over, and a great shift in funding will end the field of quantum information.  It shows you have been barking up the wrong fermion tree for 100 years.  It shows you are more interested in the status quo than the foundations of QM.  

Just like the Positivist Karl Mach, people who are the leaders and influencers in physics today are holding up progress by being myopic like Mach.  Yet they are unable or unwilling to express their objections in print.   Since you are silent, and continue to support Bell, you are not doing your due diligence as a scientist. Many publicists, like Sabine Hossenfelder and Curt Jaimungal, study the foundations and express the failures of the SM, yet they have the answer and promote the BiSM:  Here is a nutshell that you need to understand about spin:

A fermion is not fundamental but the blade of a polarized boson (bivector).  

Please chew on that.  Tell me what is wrong with the following attached, and why you refuse to accept that  the SM should be replaced by a bivector SM.  Otherwise, capitulate to the Bivector approach to spin.  This is a Black Swan event: now you have been told there is a second way to linearize the KG equation, you must accept it, and decide between them. The axiom, "there are no black swans, they are all white" was overturned when a black swan was observed. It is there, in your face, and you must abandon your white swan axiom.

Bryan

Paper

Sanctuary, B. The Classical Origin of Spin: Vectors Versus Bivectors. Axioms 2025, 14, 668. https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1680/14/9/668/pdf

Vido play list

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLfE6XkGjhsIcNbCcWVZwEw1Lzd4-v5c4H

[Bryan Sanctuary]

The two images seem not to  have gone through

[Bryan Sanctuary]

A typo worth correcting:

Many publicists, like Sabine Hossenfelder and Curt Jaimungal, study the foundations and express the failures of the SM, yet they have the answer and SHOULD  promote the BiSM.

Sorry Sabine and Curt.

BCS

On Sat, Oct 4, 2025 at 9:44 AM Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Richard Gill]

Dear Bryan

You seem to believe that each particle carries two spin-like properties. Then experimenters will need to devise new measurement devices, preferably ones which will deliver two binary outcomes for each particle. Once you have got the measurement side of your novel quantum theory sorted out, and as it were aligned to feasible lab measurement procedures, we can talk about whether your theory is compatible with local realism. For the time being I can only say that as a statistician, not a physicist, I’m unqualified to talk about it. Except to repeat what I already said many times: correlations can’t be added. 

The negative cosine is the sum of two amplitude 0.5 negative cosine curves. So I can start a new theory saying there is A spin and B spin, each carries half the negative cosine; I give you a local hidden variables model for each.

I think that my theory is much simpler than yours, much more elegant!

Richard

Sent from my iPad

On 4 Oct 2025, at 15:44, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:



--
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/CALLw9YzrpBkoM6mLJqk63yETw4TJhF%3DTT2KsS3OBhaBCjhfQkg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Fred Diether]

I had Copilot translate BS's computer simulation to Mathematica.  He is post selecting the raw A and B +/- 1 data.

As someone else told me, "BS is clueless".

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Richard,  

You’re jumping to conclusions without reading my papers nor understanding what I have done.

I do not posit “two spins.” The model is one spin-1 bivector with two blades; spin is defined as and its scalar/wedge parts are givien in Section 2.5, Eqs. 11–12. Please point to an error there.

Sanctuary, B. The Classical Origin of Spin: Vectors Versus Bivectors. Axioms 2025, 14, 668. https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1680/14/9/668/pdf

No exotic apparatus required. Standard Stern–Gerlach–type settings probe projections; the extra correlation arises because EPR experiments measure correlations, to which both vector (polarization) and bivector (coherence) parts contribute.

“Correlations can’t be added” is exactly backwards here. You think of the lever law in a single classical convex set, and there I agree. The paper shows the full EPR curve (cosine-like) is the sum of a vector term (CHSH≈2) and a bivector term (CHSH≈1); they exist in complementary convex sets, so Bell’s inequalities apply to each separately.  Please see Section 3. Correspondence and Parity, and disagree or not: note that you cannot say it is out of your background.  The argument is standard math of classical convex sets, and is not challenging .

If you think my decomposition is equivalent to your “A-spin/B-spin” toy, please indicate which step in Eqs. 11–12 (or the immediate quaternion form) makes that identification valid, or show the algebraic inconsistency.

So you do not need to start a new HV theory, I have already done it without HV, using classical mechanics, and rejecting the SM with a clear ontic and local description of a bivector which does one thing: changes the algebra from Cl(1,3) to Cl(2,2), see the figure.  So you have not in any way challenged my hypothesis that the SM be replaced by the  BiSM.  

Bryan

[Richard Gill]

Dear Bryan

The curve can be written as a sum of two curves. That can be done in a myriad of ways, it proves nothing.

So according to you, is each pair of binary outcomes the sum of two pairs of binary outcomes? Could they be distinguished by building better detectors?

If so, please get an experimentalist to do an enhanced Bell experiment with two binary outcomes at each measurement station for each “particle pair”. Then we can talk again. If that happens you have disproved Bell’s theorem and you and the experimenter will get the Nobel prize.

Richard

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Richard said

1. "The curve can be written as a sum of two curves. That can be done in a myriad of ways, it proves nothing."

Bryans reply:

The curve is decomposed according to the geometric product: 

Go ahead, use any other math decomposition, and you lose the separation into symmetric (polarization) and antisymmetric (coherence).  

2. "So according to you, is each pair of binary outcomes the sum of two pairs of binary outcomes?"

Bryan's reply:

No, I say that each binary outcome is correlation between either two symmetric vectors or between two antisymmetric bivectors. Better detectors are always desirable.

3.  "If so, please get an experimentalist to do an enhanced Bell experiment with two binary outcomes at each measurement station for each “particle pair”. 

Bryan's reply:

It is clear you have not read nor are interested in my paper, https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1680/14/9/668/pdf    In section 8, I suggest 6 new or modified experiments.  8.2 amd 8.3 address your suggestion to separate coincidences from symmetric and antisymmetric. Yes, I hope that experimentalists take up that challenge.  

4.  You also, everywhere, state I must average those two outcomes not add.  I have fully addressed that in the paper, (convex sets section 3) but if we follow your prescription of averaging,  then we must average the four coincidences from CHSH and not add them.  This, then, is Richards CHSH equation, averaged.

Richard, you, the Guardian of Bell, are grasping at straws and you really have missed almost everything.  I do not want to continue to respond to your off-the-cuff ideas to prove me wrong. You need to formulate your email into a short, to the point, criticism of what I have done, publish it, and I will then blow it out of the water.  That, Richard, is why you hide behind ideas that you throw out in an attempt to obfuscate. You may have the ears of those threatened by my results, but you have nothing that is detrimental to my work.  So please think before you blunder, because you are beginning to sound like Fred.

Bryan

[Richard Gill]

Thanks, Bryan, for your lucid explanation of your decomposition of the correlation, as calculated in QM. It has nothing whatsoever to do with observational data. In my opinion, it is a typical “lost in math” fantasy. I honestly don’t think it actually has anything to do with physics. But maybe some physicists can comment on that.

Sent from my iPhone

On 5 Oct 2025, at 16:44, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:



Richard said

1. "The curve can be written as a sum of two curves. That can be done in a myriad of ways, it proves nothing."

Bryans reply:

The curve is decomposed according to the geometric product: 

<image.png>

Go ahead, use any other math decomposition, and you lose the separation into symmetric (polarization) and antisymmetric (coherence).  

2. "So according to you, is each pair of binary outcomes the sum of two pairs of binary outcomes?"

Bryan's reply:

No, I say that each binary outcome is correlation between either two symmetric vectors or between two antisymmetric bivectors. Better detectors are always desirable.

3.  "If so, please get an experimentalist to do an enhanced Bell experiment with two binary outcomes at each measurement station for each “particle pair”. 

Bryan's reply:

It is clear you have not read nor are interested in my paper, https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1680/14/9/668/pdf    In section 8, I suggest 6 new or modified experiments.  8.2 amd 8.3 address your suggestion to separate coincidences from symmetric and antisymmetric. Yes, I hope that experimentalists take up that challenge.  

4.  You also, everywhere, state I must average those two outcomes not add.  I have fully addressed that in the paper, (convex sets section 3) but if we follow your prescription of averaging,  then we must average the four coincidences from CHSH and not add them.  This, then, is Richards CHSH equation, averaged.

<image.png>

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Richard,

Put it into press or be quiet.  I agree with experiment, you do not. I want to know why you refuse to go to press.  Please tell me. After all, in the past,  you have responded to every critique of Bell's work EXCEPT MINE!  You have nothing that holds up against my work.  If you did, you and the N.P winners would be quick to respond. Silence in press speaks volumes.  Bell's classical work on correlation fundamentally fails because of complementarity.  That complementarity is based on the geometric product.  To prove me wrong, you must show the geometric product is wrong.  You cannot. 

You should capitulate and leave the sinking boat of Bell, which has misled several generations of physicists.  

Bryan

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

Both Richard and I have responded to your critique.

We have studied your work in detail.

Your work is fundamentally flawed.

Your version of the geometric product is a complete misunderstanding of the concepts.

Both Richard and I have patiently attempted to explain this to you over and over.

It does not matter what we say because you are not willing to listen.

Your claims are complete confused nonsense that will disappear without a trace.

I will again quote Clifford Truesdell "This paper gives wrong solutions to trivial problems. The basic error, however, is not new."

/Jan-Åke

--
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/CALLw9YxRZcVok5HZQCfryFcM_3Jx9Ty%2BE8tNiyfXKR-fQtWi7g%40mail.gmail.com.

--
Jan-Åke Larsson
Professor, Head of Department

Department of Electrical Engineering SE-581 83 Linköping Phone: +46 (0)13-28 14 68 Mobile: +46 (0)13-28 14 68 Visiting address: Campus Valla, House B, Entr 27, 3A:512 Please visit us at www.liu.se

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Dear Jan-Åke,

I have responded, read section 3 of the paper. To you I also state: put your objections into press. You have never explained your objection  and you have only stated, without any basis, that correlations from different experiments must be averaged. So why do you add the correlations in the four experiments for CHSH?

 My work goes far beyond Bell, and questions the SM.  Do you choose Dirac's matter antimatter pair of his spinor solution, or my linearization using a bivector?  That is, do you choose Cl(1,3) or Cl(2.2)?  But you say my work is flawed.  I can say the Earth is flat. But you need to show it, not state it.

I paid attention to your criticism to find them baseless, and I responded in press. I really question your statement that you have read my paper in detail.  You should be honest because you have not.  Basically, you object because my approach shows that your work, using teleportation, is incorrect with no Bell theorem, and that Quantum computing is not viable since qubits cannot be formed from bivectors. You are barking up the wrong tree. 

You can keep your ideas, and get left behind.  It is up to you, but I will only respond more if you first publish. 

Bryan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/6880da92-36cf-4923-83a0-b3cc76a266ca%40liu.se.