Rely to Gill, Helland and Jongejan - Three ways to find comfort ...

[anton vrba]

in the thread https://groups.google.com/g/Bell_quantum_foundations/c/pt04xzq9W28 Richard introduced the co-authored paper  (https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.13154 )Three ways to find comfort with the Bell proof and the results of the Bell experiments. 

Attached is my reply, Reply-to_Gill_Helland_Jongejan.pdf, proposing a fourth way.

The starting point is an ontological one: a nilpotent universe that preserves the whole, which cannot change by local interactions. The role of the optical apparatus in Freedman–Clauser, Ou–Mandel and Kwiat et al. is not to create entanglement but to establish the conditions under which it becomes expressible in polarisation correlations. What Hilbert space represents as wave-function collapse is proposed to be the local expression of a globally constrained physical event.

The proposal comes with a go/no-go experiment. Unlike the three positions surveyed, which are empirically equivalent to standard quantum mechanics and to one another by construction, this one predicts a CHSH violation where standard quantum mechanics predicts none. A null result, that is S<2, rejects my proposal.

The discussion I am after is whether a nilpotent constraint is viable against Hilbert-space constructions, and whether it is a fourth way in the sense of Richard, Inge and Bart. Pushback on the argument is welcome — the paper states in §4.8 exactly what would refute it. Constructive additions to harden the argument are welcome too.

PS — please do not hijack the thread with pet theories.

Regards
Anton

[Mark Hadley]

I would ask if your theory makes the same predictions as QM. I think you are saying it's different.

I like doing a theoretical comparison of theories with QM.

If it is different then let's identify a really simple experiment that distinguishes it. Tunnelling, two slit angular momentum quantisation, particle in a box.

We don't have several QMs to choose between. There is just one consistent theory. If it's wrong in one experiment then it's wrong everywhere.

Mark

--
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/ema738d908-02a4-4b7b-9e26-400ca93ee571%40gmail.com.

[Richard Gill]

I think this way of thinking is close to the “holistic” approach of Engel Wichmann.

https://zenodo.org/records/19241817

[Richard Gill]

Dear Anton

In your paper you write “Gill’s dichotomy — classical randomness reducible to initial conditions, quantum randomness irreducible — admits a third case: randomness that is dynamically generated, deterministic underneath, and inaccessible in principle to observers made of the same stuff.”

I don’t think that the third case is genuinely different. It is a particular case of classical randomness reducible to initial conditions. Such initial conditions may well be inaccessible to observers of the main stuff.

Richard

On 17 Jul 2026, at 20:26, anton vrba <anto...@gmail.com> wrote:



<Reply-to_Gill_Helland_Jongejan.pdf>

[anton vrba]

Richard, 

Yes the idea is holistic, but unlike Wichmann my approach is different, I propose an experiment to test if QM is holistic/global or local with probabilistic results.  Lets examine the 1988 OU and Mandel setup in figure 1 taken from their paper.

The UV pump photon is down converted by a type I SPDC marked KDP (green) say |H H〉 one leg (idler) is rotated 90 degrees giving |V H〉 and then the Beam Splitter (Flamingo Pink Oval) produces the entangled state |V H〉+|H V〉 as we do not know if the idler's |V〉 is reflected or passed straight through.  

I maintain that the entanglement is a function of the down conversion event and not that of the BS and ask why entanglement in the form of a CHSH S>2 cannot be detected before the bean splitter. I posit that is because the photons before the BS are locked into their respective pilot wave, after the beam splitter we still have photons in the defined state --- either the |V H〉 or |H V〉 state --- as particles but not in indeterminate superposition, and the key is that the pilot waves are now in circular polarisation, and this circular polarised pilot wave enables the experimental detection of the entanglement.   This theory can be tested in a very simple experiment as in Fig 2

Here two entangled photons are produced by the type I SPDC as in Ou, which are converted to circular polarised photons as particle and pilot wave, a similar condition to the Freedman Clauser 2 photon cascade of the Ca atom and I predict the CHSH result of S>2.  

The experiment is simple and cheap, the outcome if null supports the contemporary view and if confirmed supports a causal holistic particle pilot wave theory, a theory that then needs to be developed in full.

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

From "Richard Gill" <gill...@gmail.com>

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

Cc bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com; "Inge Svein Helland" <in...@math.uio.no>; "Bart Jongejan" <bart.j...@gmail.com>

Date 7/18/2026 7:32:04 AM

Subject Re: Rely to Gill, Helland and Jongejan - Three ways to find comfort ...

[anton vrba]

Dear Richard,

You are right — inaccessibility doesn't distinguish the cases, and the sentence claims too much. Rather than defend it, let me propose the replacement and ask whether you'd accept it.

I would cut the "third case" sentence and put in its place:

This randomness is reducible to initial conditions in Gill's sense, and I do not dispute that. But the underlying variable is not local: the steering makes the second outcome depend on the first analyser's setting, so there is no λ with X = f(a,λ) and Y = g(b,λ) separately — the factorisation Bell's derivation requires. The framework is therefore a nonlocal, deterministic, no-signalling pilot-wave theory. That is a known category, not a new one; what is new, if anything, is the specific guidance law and the experiment that would test it, not the metaphysical slot it occupies.

This concedes your point, drops the overreach, and rests the distinction on local versus nonlocal reducibility rather than on accessibility. I recognise you may still say a nonlocal deterministic HV is just the action-at-a-distance route you've already declined — in which case the honest position is that the novelty is the guidance law and the test, nothing more.

Does that edit satisfy the objection on your side of it?

Anton

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

From "Richard Gill" <gill...@gmail.com>

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

Cc bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com; "Inge Svein Helland" <in...@math.uio.no>; "Bart Jongejan" <bart.j...@gmail.com>

Date 7/18/2026 8:52:03 AM

Subject Re: Rely to Gill, Helland and Jongejan - Three ways to find comfort ...

[Richard Gill]

Dear Anton

Yes that looks good to me!

Richard 

Sent from my iPhone

On 18 Jul 2026, at 10:10, anton vrba <anto...@gmail.com> wrote:



[Inge Svein Helland]

Dear Anton,

I have only skimmed your article, but agree with the conclusion that you seem to have reached now:

The framework is therefore a nonlocal, deterministic, no-signalling pilot-wave theory.

The joint background state is the singlet state, and to violate CHSH in your model, you seem to need some kind of nonlocality. Thus your conclusion is in agreement with Bell's theorem.

We all agree on the Bell theorem. My own approach is to state that, in order to allow CHSH violatation in some cases in practice, we can assume that the mind of any observer is limited in a specific sense. This assumption is consistent with a general epistemic interpretation of QM, but not with an ontic interpretation.  

Inge

---

Fra: Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>
Sendt: lørdag 18. juli 2026 10:16
Til: anton vrba <anto...@gmail.com>
Kopi: Bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com <Bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com>; Inge Svein Helland <in...@math.uio.no>; Bart Jongejan <bart.j...@gmail.com>; Mark Hadley <sunshine...@googlemail.com>
Emne: Re: Rely to Gill, Helland and Jongejan - Three ways to find comfort ...

 

[Richard Gill]

Inge, I think you have completely misunderstood Anton’s point. He has an alternative to QM. It predicts S = 2 in a situation where QM predicts S = 2 sqrt 2

Sent from my iPad

On 18 Jul 2026, at 10:47, Inge Svein Helland <in...@math.uio.no> wrote:



[Inge Svein Helland]

Thank you, Richard. I did not perceive that he had a complete alternative to QM. I think that rejecting QM is even more serious than rejecting Bell's theorem

Inge

---

Fra: Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>
Sendt: lørdag 18. juli 2026 11:32
Til: Inge Svein Helland <in...@math.uio.no>
Kopi: anton vrba <anto...@gmail.com>; Bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com <Bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com>; Bart Jongejan <bart.j...@gmail.com>; Mark Hadley <sunshine...@googlemail.com>
Emne: Re: Reply to Gill, Helland and Jongejan - Three ways to find comfort ...

 

[anton vrba]

No No No Richard! and Inge take note

I propose an experiment that predicts S = 2 root 2 in a situation where QM predicts S = 2,  with conforming predictions of all known optical entanglement experiments and provide the premise why that it should be so.  So yes it is an alternative QM replacing superposition with a particle pilotwave ontology without a Hilbert space wavefunction collapse but use a nilpotent universe. 

You cannot change a spaceship path by interactions bound to the spaceship walls, that is equivalent to no local action can change the sum of all states in the universe.

Please revisit my earlier post:

 https://groups.google.com/g/Bell_quantum_foundations/c/XcxKtxYaNLU/m/T4yBM5qYAgAJ

regards

Anton

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

From "Richard Gill" <gill...@gmail.com>

To "Inge Svein Helland" <in...@math.uio.no>

Cc "anton vrba" <anto...@gmail.com>; Bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com; "Bart Jongejan" <bart.j...@gmail.com>; "Mark Hadley" <sunshine...@googlemail.com>

Date 7/18/2026 10:32:49 AM

Subject Re: Reply to Gill, Helland and Jongejan - Three ways to find comfort ...

[Richard Gill]

Sorry, I misunderstood.

And you agree with Bell’s theorem. Your theory is nonlocal, just as Bell predicts.

And you believe QM is wrong.

I don’t understand quantum optics well enough to judge the experimental evidence.

Sent from my iPad

On 18 Jul 2026, at 11:50, anton vrba <anto...@gmail.com> wrote:



[anton vrba]

Dear Richard, 

Yes my ansatz is non local all that I am saying at the moment is 

1) Optical entanglement is a manifestation of the creation event that produces the tested photons, not something the downstream apparatus creates.

2) A particle pilot-wave ontology is the natural reading of that.

3) Wave-function collapse is replaced by a global nilpotent conservation law: no local interaction can change the sum of all states of the universe  (you cannot alter a spaceship's trajectory by pushing on its inner walls.)

I am not presenting the mathematical physics, that remains this proposal's primary and steepest theoretical challenge. 

The incentive to develop it hinges entirely on the "go/no-go" experiment proposed here.  

Please refer to Bell's "On the impossible pilot wave" on page 160 of my copy of Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics,  (see excerpt) it is that spirit I am claiming --- that a realist, deterministic route is legitimate and worth pursuing. What is required a recommendation to someone who has the resources to perform said experiment.

Anton

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

From "Richard Gill" <gill...@gmail.com>

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

Cc "Inge Svein Helland" <in...@math.uio.no>; Bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com; "Bart Jongejan" <bart.j...@gmail.com>; "Mark Hadley" <sunshine...@googlemail.com>

Date 7/18/2026 10:56:53 AM

[anton vrba]

A revised version of "Reply to Gill, Helland and Jongejan: A Fourth Way — The Nilpotent Universe" is available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21426049

Changes are 

i) in second and third paragraphs of §4.6 

ii) first paragraph §5 

iii) second paragraph §6 

correcting my text to Richard's clarifications.

[Parker Emmerson]

Dear Anton, All,

I had only just made the connection between this many worlds interpretation and thermodynamics. It connects to your inquiry as to why the pilot wave picture was ignored.

The Everett Many-Worlds Interpretation (Thermodynamic Time)

In the strict mathematical formulation of the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI), the universal wave function evolves deterministically and reversibly. At the fundamental level, there is no true "arrow of time" or irreversible flow. Time's forward direction is merely an illusion experienced by observers confined to a single branching path of the wave function, driven by the local growth of entropy.

Attosecond physics uses precise time-tracking to challenge the textbook narrative of random quantum collapses. Yet, the deepest theoretical frameworks seeking to unify quantum mechanics with gravity suggest that time itself might be an illusion.

The historical rejection of pilot-wave theory rests on two false textbook premises: that quantum transitions are unobservable, and that non-locality violates relativity.

Modern attosecond experiments dismantle the first premise. By tracking real-time electron delays, they prove quantum transitions are continuous trajectories rather than instantaneous, magical collapses. This reinterprets uncertainty as a temporary measurement constraint rather than an inherent fuzziness in nature.

Concurrently, timeless quantum gravity resolves the relativistic conflict. By eliminating a universal background clock, it shows that non-local connections operate across a static, emergent geometric structure rather than an absolute timeline.

Finally, the PV-REC framework anchors this geometry using time-symmetric source-absorber mechanics. It locks entanglement into the initial creation event and replaces wave collapse with a global conservation law. Together, these pillars prove that textbook indeterminism was a deliberate ideological choice, not an empirical fact.

all my best,

Parker

--

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/ema80331eb-fa70-4db4-8a71-93744934f44e%40gmail.com.