Bell is mis-specified claim MIT physicist using quaternion spin

[anton vrba]

I asked AI to untangle the entanglement claims of this paper https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2025.0413 published by the Royal Society, and asked if it is a geometric (global hidden Variable) or probabilistic 

The honest summary

For entanglement specifically, their answer is: the correlation is geometrically pre-determined at the moment of separation through shared classical eigenspinors, and is then carried deterministically along each particle's classical rotation path to the detectors. The probabilistic element sits in the initial ensemble (which pair of anti-correlated spins, and with what unknown initial axis n_o) and in the final measurement projection onto the filter direction. So it's a hidden-variables interpretation, but one where the "hidden variable" is a spinor on the Bloch sphere rather than Bell's scalar λ — and their argument is that Bell's inequality simply doesn't apply to the correct (spinor-valued) classical object.

Whether this constitutes a genuine reformulation or a relabeling is the kind of question the physics community will have to work through. A few things to keep an eye on as you read further: the paper does not address the Kochen–Specker / contextuality results, which are often considered a stronger obstacle than Bell alone for non-contextual hidden variables; it also doesn't engage with loophole-free Bell tests post-2015 (Hensen et al., Giustina et al., Shalm et al.) that closed the locality and detection loopholes simultaneously. Their claim that Bell's derivation is mis-specified rather than falsified by experiment is a strong claim that will need scrutiny from specialists in quantum foundations.

[Richard Gill]

AI is making a bad mistake. Bell’s lambda is not necessarily a scalar. He just writes formulas using lazy 1960’s physicist’s notation. Had he used measure-theoretic probability notation, physicists wouldn’t have read his paper.

Sent from my iPad

On 24 Apr 2026, at 13:56, anton vrba <anto...@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/em3f33c22c-3d44-4a4f-9c16-260a43b77927%40gmail.com.

[Mark Hadley]

while it's good discipline for an expert to read and understand original papers, they are invariably a bad place to learn. With time, better treatments become available in text books and later papers.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/FB308EE0-E215-482C-AD0B-B88EF5587AF6%40gmail.com.

[Austin Fearnley]

I asked Google search AI (sorry Richard)  "how does this impact on bells theorem?"

AI response: The paper "On computing quantum waves exactly from classical action" challenges the traditional interpretation of Bell's Theorem by demonstrating that the Schrödinger equation can be solved using classical "least action" principles. By reinterpreting quantum behavior as a sum of classical multipaths, the study suggests that the correlations in EPR experiments may be explained classically, challenging the necessity of non-locality. Read the full study etc ....

Is non-locality well defined?  In my retrocausal view, the electron always travels locally but it can appear globally to have travelled non-locally.  What I mean by this is that the electron always moves within its own immediate vicinity yet (because of reverse time paths cf De Costa) can end its path in a remote end point, apparently instantaneously.  That is, in its own frame it travels locally but in an observer's frame it could appear to travel non-locally.  So is that behavior local or non-local travel?

Similarly for a photon which travels instantly in its own frame yet travels at speed c in an onserver's frame.  So for a photon all points in spacetime are instantly available to it:  does that make a photon travel non-locally or locally wrt its own frame.  Does it even travel wrt its own frame?

[Richard Gill]

The AI response is garbage. The paper does not challenge Bell’s theorem. The authors might wish to suggest that the EPR correlations may be explained classically, but their paper shows clearly that they do not understand Bell’s theorem and hence do not understand the significance of the famous sequence of experiments which it engendered. 

Apart from that, it might be a very good paper. I can’t read, let alone judge, the kind of maths they are doing.

Sent from my iPad

On 27 Apr 2026, at 13:47, Austin Fearnley <ben...@hotmail.com> wrote:

I asked Google search AI (sorry Richard)  "how does this impact on bells theorem?"

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/5a90e06f-4ace-449c-bfaf-d897592ab525n%40googlegroups.com.

[Parker Emmerson]

There is an odd phenomenon, I'll admit, when it comes to Bell's theorem that rightfully makes people dubious of it as fully rigorous or providing an accurate picture of the phenomenon being studied. That is, it seems whenever someone invents a counter example to Bell's Theorem, Bell's Theorem seemingly adapts and broadens the number of required constraints so as to narrow the scope of the theorem. If you narrow the scope down all the way, we see that Bell's theorem is a case example, a single case, applying narrowly to a single commutative Kolmogorov class. In that way, Bell's theorem gets extensively reduced to constraints solely on a single Kolmogorov model, not broadly applicable to the catch-all phrases it sometimes picks up in colloquial language. I'd appreciate it if anyone could be interested in my papers that I share them here with you:

My peer-reviewed works: https://ijqf.org/archives/8027

and https://www.mdpi.com/2624-960X/8/1/8

These present, "phenomenological velocity," as a non-commutative model that successfully reproduces the -Cos effect mathematically. Two other authors have cited my work, but their investigations are still coming out, so I'll wait to share you their correspondences until they officially get DOIs for their papers.

Thank you for your time and consideration in receiving my peer reviewed papers. My goal with these papers is to provide explicit semantics permissible for discussing the boundary between the complex and real plane and demonstrate non-commutative micro-causality as an algebraic model, couching Bell's Theorem where it belongs -- as a no-go theorem for a single kind of commutative Kolmogorov stipulation.

All my best,

Parker Emmerson

[Richard Gill]

Dear Parker Emmerson,

I think Bell’s theorem has remained unchanged and unadapted since Bell’s Bertlmann’s socks paper. Every counter example I have seen was quite simply wrong. Math errors. The scope is very clear. I have tried to narrow it down in this short note:

The point of Bell’s theorem is that it shows that a classical physical explanation does not exist for the correlations predicted by quantum mechanics and observed in experiment. If you have a different idea of what constitutes a classical physical explanation, the onus is on you. Note that In my paper, I *derive* the single Kolmogorov model from classical assumptions about causality. I believe that my description corresponds to Bell’s own heuristic reasoning. 

The experimental results shows that the classical picture which I present is false. Please let me know what is wrong with my description.

Yours

Richard Gill

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/d8ea29e0-d435-44eb-8582-24db117667a0n%40googlegroups.com.

[Austin Fearnley]

Hi Richard

Despite my extensive posts with Fred, I have not lapsed into antibellism!

Also my use of AI here did not really add anything further than the Abstract which says:  "The results ... suggest a smooth transition between physics across scales. "
This reminds me of JC's suggested macro experiment. If there is a smooth transition should macro objects behave more like micro objects, or vice versa?  So the paper (micro <=> macro) could be used to rule out micro QM effects for micro objects, assuming agreement with Bell for macro objects.

I know there are attempts to make larger objects show micro properties but I would exclude any attempts using ultra cold physics because ultra cold properties are very strange.

Also finding QM effects via a smooth transition is ontologically unsatisfactory as QM is not ontological.  Two separate entities sharing a singlet state maybe OK statistically but not ontologically.  I justify it ontologically using Costa de Beauregard's time reversed flight paths, which is a new reality.

I also am suspicious of proofs using multiple paths. Some limits need to be made in the calculations to ensure that the paths nowhere slip into time reversed flight paths.  Time has virement with space so it is OK for some jiggle room wrt time, but time reversed paths are not our supposed current reality.

[Richard Gill]

Dear Austin,

What you call a new reality seems to me to be a new fairytale. But I’m not a physicist.

What we need is new physics which makes testable new predictions.

Richard


Sent from my iPad

[Mark Hadley]

I thought there were experiments where a photo bounced of a mirror giving superposition/ interference but as the interaction with the mirror was gradually increased the interference gradually diminished.

I believe there are versions of that for a variety of experiments 

and interference of large molecules.

it's all explained by decoherence theory,which is itself an inevitable part of quantum theory. inextricable.

Cheers

Mark 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/6ecd0fe1-f671-4691-b6ed-26c31df9511an%40googlegroups.com.

[Austin Fearnley]

Hi Mark

Thanks for that.  I have not looked at photons and mirrors for a while (not shaved yet today!).  I have looked today briefly online at beam-splitter physics.

From memory, Aharonov has an interesting online video showing how he can obtain self-interference of photons (or was it electrons?) using only particle-like behaviour in a two-slit experiment.  His explanation involved non-local effects.

There was an reference online to how a mirror can be entangled to be in two places at once.  It was an effect of the mirror interacting with one photon. Sounds very suspicious.

Sabine H. has an online video showing that the delayed-choice experiment is not undoing anything in a particle's history. It convinced me she is correct.

My own explanation for beam-spitter effects is that one photon is travelling forwards in time and one is travelling backwards in time.  These opposite-in-time-direction flight paths causes entanglement.  In my preon model a +1 spin photon (BBC'C') has its spin travelling forwards in time while the -1 spin photon (B'B'CC), which is its antiparticle, has the spin component travelling backwards in time. In total, each photon is travelling both forwards and backwards in time.  Spin being carried only on the B preons and the B' antipreons and not on the C and C' preons. The ' symbol denotes travelling backwards in time, i.e. denotes an antipreon.

Decoherence.  In my preon model, antipreons can (though not strictly necessarily so) be assumed to travel in a reverse time direction. This is because preons all have negative electric charge. Electric charge can be thought of as a fifth {electric} dimension cf Kaluza-Klein.  My model assumes extra dimensions come in sets of 4D spacetimes, each with its own time direction and 3 space dimensions.  Entanglement, and quantum superposition, depend IMO on reverse time directions at work. For a macro object the reverse time directions are not apparent.  Two macro objects are dominated in behaviour by travelling forwards in time due to the thermodynamic arrow of time.  This is the arrow of time in the macro 4D of our universe.  So in  my model one cannot get macro superposition unles one can have macro objects made wholly out of antiparticles.

My preon model does imply a very strange universe, where atom nuclei are travelling one way through time while their electrons are travelling the other way in time.  Also, as my preons are sub-divisible, why do micro particles exhibit entanglement.  Why should a photon exhibit entanglement when overall it is travelling both ways in time equally.  It is because the spin of a single photon is travelling in one direction only. 

[Richard Gill]

That’s brilliant! Thank you Anton.

Sent from my iPad

On 10 May 2026, at 14:46, anton vrba <anto...@gmail.com> wrote:



Dear Richard, you wrote <Apart from that, it might be a very good paper. I can’t read, let alone judge, the kind of maths they are doing. >

Here is Sabine Hossenfelder verdict: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1ddx427bHI  She grades the Lohmiller & Slotine paper 10 out of 10 on the BS  scale

regards

Anton

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

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

To "Austin Fearnley" <ben...@hotmail.com>

Cc bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com

Date 4/27/2026 1:51:45 PM

Subject Re: [Bell_quantum_foundations] Bell is mis-specified claim MIT physicist using quaternion spin

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/265B49FE-7A66-4D4A-A89A-08D96B6E7BB5%40gmail.com.