Fine Structure consant

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Hello

I just published a paper called 

The Fine-Structure Constant in the Bivector Standard Model

Website: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1680/14/11/841
PDF Version: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1680/14/11/841/pdf

I put a Note In Proof regarding Santos and Fleury.  I also watched the movie,

(https://youtu.be/hYyrgDEJLOA?si=qhz-KejN3cxzlVPK)

with interest.  A bivector is the origin of the torus. 

Bryan

[Austin Fearnley]

Hi Bryan

I have no comments on the fine structure constant but some comments about the structure of the electron.

First, and I know it is not in your new paper, you cannot add your two correlations to get -0.707.  It is very odd, given that one cannot add correlations, that adding them gets you exactly the desired answer.

I prefer the Dirac arrangement of the SM to your BSM though I can see similarities.  I see connections using my preon model which has four preons and four antipreons.
In my model, two photons with opposite spins if somehow added together would give a composite which has no QED or QCD net properties. Maybe like your double photon with m=0.
I marked this in my preon model as a potential dark matter particle with m>0.

I would pull it apart into two photons with spins +1 and -1.  It could also be pulled apart as an electron and a positron with opposite electric charge and opposite spins. (But as two separate entities.)  I could also pull it apart as a neutrino and an antineutrino. And more... .

This separation method also works for quarks in QCD.

It is my art group this evening and the same effect works in painting.  Opposite colour pigments add to make black so long as the colours are exactly complementary.  If they are not exactly complementary you can get brown.  it were possible to start with the black and pull it apart into colours one could generate any pair of opposite colours, analogous to getting almost any particle and its antiparticle.  For black pigment it is irreversible as I cannot separate black into complementaries.  I fear it is difficult for particles too.  I suspect dark matter particles do not easily split up which is why there is suspected to be so much dark matter in the universe.  In my model there is a 75% overlap in preon contents between a photon and an electron.  Creation and annihilation of photons to electrons and vice versa occur by swapping preons but at no stage is there an m=0 double entity.

I am writing this as I hope an interesting comment not a criticism of your electron structure. Who knows, you may be correct.


You mention a double helix structure.  It is a long time since I wrote about particle inner structures in my blog but I devised triple helix structures.  Three strands because there are three colours of QCD and of preons.  Using the same set of preons within all particles I can mix up QED with QCD and also connect fermions with bosons as an alternative to SUSY.  So one can get QCD colours (and helices) within QED particles so long as there is no net QCD colour in QED particles.

Austin

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Dear Austin,

Thanks for reading the Fine Structure Constant paper and comments.  You have two questions so I will answer the first here and the second later.

Your question:

"First, and I know it is not in your new paper, you cannot add your two correlations to get -0.707.  It is very odd, given that one cannot add correlations, that adding them gets you exactly the desired answer."

My answer

I am pleased you recognize the sum agrees exactly with the experiment, and the average does not, so there must be a reason.

It is true that one cannot add correlations from a single classical probability space. I agree with the three standard assumptions that go into Bell’s inequality 

• A single hidden-variable space (\Lambda) carrying one joint distribution for all four settings ((a,a',b,b')).
• Scalar, commuting outcome functions (A(a,\lambda), B(b,\lambda)\in{\pm1}) in  the same algebra.
• Linearity of expectation across incompatible settings: the four terms in  CHSH exist in the same measure space.

Where I differ is that Bell’s theorem contains a fourth assumption that is never stated explicitly (I think):

4. All correlations arise from a single classical convex set of probability measures. Bell inequalities bound the extremal points of one convex set. My model has two independent convex sets: one for the vector/polarization sector and one for the bivector/coherence sector. These produce two binary streams, not one.

Bell’s inequality is valid within each convex set individually. But the physics supplies data from two complementary indistinguishable  state spaces (we only get clicks), so the correlations are produced independently,  The single-space CHSH bound does not apply to that combined structure. Therefore, it is not "odd" to sum.

The fundamental  basis for the sum is the geometric product--gives two complementary spaces:  

sigma_i sigms_j = delta_{ij} + epsilon_{ijk} i sigma_k

  so if you think I should average those two terms, then you must show the geo product should be averaged and not summed. You cannot do that.

So I do not disagree with Bell’s mathematics. I disagree with the usual interpretation of the theorem,  the claim that any LHV model must satisfy the single-convex-set CHSH ≤ 2 bound. A model with dual complementary sectors remains local while giving the quantum correlation from vectors and from bivectors, which is what I have shown. 

Thus I am consistent with Bell’s algebra but not with the standard physical explanation that ties locality to a single classical probability space.  So you guys can say, "he should average not sum", because that is what Bell did, and you might argue I cannot change his statistics.  But I am changing the statistics from one to two binary streams, and I think it is correct. If you require Bell's single binary stream of coincidences, then I am wrong, but if I have two independent streams, I am correct.  So you can choose.

It is not odd that I violate BI with two, but it is odd if I violate BI with only one binary stream.

I will reply to the second question soon.

Bryan

--
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/5fb75959-3256-4981-a097-2f79d5af8f1an%40googlegroups.com.

[Mark Hadley]

Nonsense of course.

You have been shown your error several times. And assumption 4 is not an assumption of Bell.

Mark

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CALLw9YzAd%3Dr%2BQDe-PL-hA%3D170igJQ63WXsTQDUY_mdfrx4EF8A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Austin,

Please, it is not nonsense, and I object to your categorization as such. But now you must show it is nonsense. 

Two sets, duality:  is a point of view that Bell, you and others did not consider.   Please tell me how point 4 is not a tacit assumption of Bell's.  How can you say spin does not have duality, like position-momentum?  Bell keeps the FIRST term of the geo product, and I keep them both. 

So rather than dismiss my statement, please accept that Bell considered only one classical set, which does not apply to two sets.  You can have your point of view:  one binary stream cannot violate BI, but you cannot reject my situation which is two binary streams.  You must show me wrong, and with two sets, you cannot.

I think disproving Bell's theorem is too disruptive to accept after 60 years, Nobel prizes, and gobs of research funds at stake. It seems to me my simple logic of two sets is rejected not because the correlations are added, but because the changes due to adding are too disruptive to the foundations of physics. So you remain believing that Nature is controlled by Quantum Weirdness, something you cannot explain, but I can, but you need two convex sets.

Bryan

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

Still this nonsense.

Bryan, you are wrong. This has been proven to you, in writing over and over.

No, you cannot add correlations. You need to take convex combination.

My patience has run out.

/Jan-Åke

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CALLw9Ywm3E%3D1gYb3pfdgsskeHn4iwppRyX-n7LcuPuXEp2Ygaw%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]

Jan-Åke,

Well Richard agrees with the 4th assumption, and recognized that I am changing Bell's statistics from one to two binary streams.  That is how we resolved our differences.  He will likely try to say he did not, but I will quote him in response.  I am on solid ground, and BTY, I agree with experiment and you do not!

Also, if you continue to be uncivil, and use Fred type language with me, I will not respond to you.  I have a valid, logical explanation, that you reject because you will not accept the duality of spin. So we differ, and that difference is not nonsense. 

I hope that is clear

Bryan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/0711e21a-603d-4966-9ade-710034e4863f%40liu.se.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Dear Austin,

Your second question you raised has to do with my discussion in the FSC paper of bivector spin.  I suggest it is a bit premature of you to prefer the SM over the BiSM because you have not had the time to appreciate it. It is a perfectly good linearization of the KG equation that Dirac missed, and it gives the classical origin of spin.  To reject it so quickly, seems to me to be more biased than logic.

I think the bivector spin is compelling, so rather than jumping to a like or dislike, please give it a chance. 

You say you see a connection between your preon model but I cannot. I cannot begin to visualize preons  and how they work and build, and successfully compare them to bivectors. They are apples and oranges.  Preons are hypothetical constituents of quarks and leptons; they have never been observed, have no spectroscopic or scattering consequences, and are not visualizable within any consistent dynamical framework.   That is basically also my critique of all of QFT.  Preons are also not currently treated seriously I gather. There are NO hypothetical particles in the BiSM, like there are no neutrinos.

To understand the bivector spin, you must forget QFT and think of Geometric Algebra.  You must also forget about fermions as fundamental. Only spin-1 bosons exist and fermions emerge as the blades (m = \pm 1), of the boson.  It is a totally different ontology.

My spin is a spinning bivector in our 3D space.  The SM cannot explain the FSC and I can, and also I can explain the ZBW: paper in prep now.  In fact, all the issues with the SM are removed with the BiSM. Ask me.

Again, this is a result of solving the Dirac equation with Cl(2,2).  Dirac used Cl(1,3), and that change is significant.

Bryan

On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 1:35 PM Austin Fearnley <ben...@hotmail.com> wrote:

[Richard Gill]

I don’t agree with your 4th assumption, Bryan, and never said so.

Here it is: “All correlations arise from a single classical convex set of probability measures. Bell inequalities bound the extremal points of one convex set. My model has two independent convex sets: one for the vector/polarization sector and one for the bivector/coherence sector. These produce two binary streams, not one.”

The first sentence is nonsense. Regarding the second sentences: Bell inequalities are hyperplanes containing boundary faces of the convex sets of the probability distributions under local local realism in a Bell type experiment. You seem to have picked up some words and phrases from the literature without understanding them at all. Regarding the third sentences: if your model describes two “independent” sets of experiments, one for polarization experiments, one for coherence experiments, then it defines two such convex sets, but adding them is meaningless. If your experiment on the contrary allows two measurements simultaneously with binary’s outcomes, then it is equivalent to one experiment with four possible outcomes per measurement. There are Bell type inequalities for such experiments too. Involving *one*convex set.

Richard

Sent from my iPad

On 24 Nov 2025, at 18:58, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CALLw9Yy9qrfF7cJ4HVvgP3hw9Xjjxn%2BgWv5dk4k%3D2bACDML7cA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Fred Diether]

No worries, Richard.  I think everyone knows BS's theory is a pile of junk.  The big mystery is how he got it published.  

However, I will mention that an electron is most likely a 3-sphere, so more complicated than a spinning bivector.

[Mark Hadley]

Dear Bryan,

Total nonsense, and dishonest too.

Remember you saying a few weeks ago that you would resolve the correlations calculation - I have not heard anything.

The hidden assumption is not in BI not assumped in any logical step. It's easy to see why...

Bell denotes hidden variables by Lambda and the functions of lambda and theta as A and B. There is no assumption in the dimensions or scope of those variables. 

If you had two distributions sat lambda1 and lambda2 with functions A1 and A2 etc and mu that says if the event is in distribution 1 or 2. Then..

We define Lambda which is from the combined variable space if lambda1,v lambda2 and mu.

And a function A if my then A1 else A2

Now we have Aand Lambda as required for Bell 

I think you probably know that

Mark

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Mark

  You call me dishonest.  Unacceptable. I will no longer engage with you until you are civil, no matter what you say.

Bryan

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Richard,

Answer yes or no:  Is Bell restricted to a single classical convex set or not?

I told you that Bell does not consider duality.  His work is classical.  You cannot say he did not assume a single set, because he did, he does not have two.  So tacitly he made assumption 4. 

Bryan

[Mark Hadley]

I suspect you won't engage with me because you know I can reveal the falsity if your claims.

You made a bet, used this forum to publicise your work. You lost the bet and refused to pay. That's dishonest 

Apologise and pay up.

For those new to this Bryan made a bet that he could create a local hidden variable theory and that all scholars would recognise this and agree that EPR had a local HV explanation. You even claimed that people would have to hand back their Novel prizes ( not strictly part of the bet.) And the bet had a very tight deadline that expired years ago.

Mark

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Mark,

You are still on about the bet that Richard lost. And you fall back on the inane idea that I cannot reply to you.   I have no interest in engaging with you because you are uncivil.  I have no fear of you nor your ideas, and you have not falsified anything.  You are no threat to me. You are just unwilling to act like an academic, and until you do, I will not engage with you.

Bryan

[Mark Hadley]

Well Bryan who has handed back their Novel prize because of your work. Which text books have been rewritten ..?

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Mark

The bet:  Mark thinks the bet was:  Bryan could create a local hidden variable theory and that all scholars would recognise this and agree that EPR had a local HV explanation.

I did not bet this. I do not use any LHV.  I recognized that spin is a bivector, not a vector, and 5 publications confirm I won.  It was just that Richard kept complaining about the money, and this is about science not money. So I let him off.  I will bet you have not even tried to understand what I found:

1.  Sanctuary, B. Quaternion Spin. Mathematics 2024, 12, 1962. https://doi.org/10.3390/math12131962\
2. Sanctuary, B. Spin Helicity and the Disproof of Bell’s Theorem. Quantum Rep. 2024, 6, 436–441. https://doi.org/10.3390/quantum6030028
3. Sanctuary, B. EPR Correlations Using Quaternion Spin. Quantum Rep. 2024, 6(3), 409-425; https://doi.org/10.3390/quantum6030026
4. Sanctuary, B. The Classical Origin of Spin: Vectors Versus Bivectors. Axioms 2025, 14, 668. https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1680/14/9/668/pdf
5. Sanctuary, B. The Fine-Structure Constant in the Bivector Standard Model. Axioms 2025, 14, 841. https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms14110841

So think twice please before you say I am dishonest, 

Bryan

[Mark Hadley]

Put up here for all to see what the bet was. What you promised and on what timesclaes

[Austin Fearnley]

Hi Bryan

It was not me, Austin, that used the description "nonsense".  I did not and would not write that.

Austin

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Austin

I am sorry, it was Mark.  

Bryan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/fdd9e7ea-f5a9-43c5-ac9d-d291cb5a5e2bn%40googlegroups.com.

[Richard Gill]

You mean the bet that *you* lost, Bryan!

Sent from my iPad

On 24 Nov 2025, at 22:17, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CALLw9YzG8u%3DQu%3DTP69OKGDxjcJuveb%2BtmDx84CKi98yOBLje2Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Richard Gill]

Bryan bet that in a year, 50% of our peers would agree that Bell was wrong. I forget when exactly that was. Unfortunately, within a year he hadn’t yet got a single “disproof of Bell” paper published in a mainstream journal. I gave him another year. By then the situation was still much the same. And now, he still hasn’t attained widespread acceptance of his theory. His published works have not let to some kind of revolution. He expected Zeilinger etc to withdraw papers. It hasn’t happened. Certainly didn’t happen in two years. From the time we announced the bet.

An embarrassing incident occurred when one of those journals (initially he submitted his three papers to the top journals in the field) asked me to referee one of his papers. He had already put out a preprint and I had posted a review on PubPeer. I sent the journal my PubPeer review. Bryan had already seen it.

He proposed the bet, he said, because he thought it would draw attention to his work. It didn’t. 

Richard

Sent from my iPad

On 24 Nov 2025, at 22:32, 'Mark Hadley' via Bell inequalities and quantum foundations <Bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAN%3D2%2Bo03FwMHSgh96XT3QRgwoRTXG5Mi%2BdYokH%2BnhW5EAZNwmg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Hello all,

Richard is like Putin.  He likes to change history and facts. The bet is now long over, hackneyed , and history, so you can skip this. But they keep bringing it up.

Richard has selective memory.  I did not bet on Richard's terms, but said I could resolve the EPR paradox with a local model.  (Richard's bet-conditions terms cannot be won). He accepted the bet and then as I advanced, Richard became anticy about his 5,000 euros, and Jan Ake and Mark became uncivil and acromonios.  They did not read my papers, came to uninformed conclusions, and Richard deliberately held up the paper for 9 months as a referee and rejected it, when he had a conflict of interest which he did not declare.  I NEVER expected people to give up prizes and never said it:--a ridiculous claim by Richard, but those winners should know there is another more reasonable explanation. Zeilinger, Aspert and Clauser maybe did good experiments, but that is not enough, and many people object to that prize. To me and others, the Prize should not be given for quantum weirdness.

I am interested in science but it comes, unfortunately, with human aggravation when the boat is rocked and fundamentals are questioned.   Richard:  you did not answer:  Is Bell's work restricted to one classical convex set?  You, the gatekeeper of Bell, and a mathematician, should be able to answer, and should, moreover, be compelled to find the answer. If you agree Bell used only one, then yet again, I have won because, just like position and momentum, spin has two complementary domains and Bell used only one.  It is a 100 year error by physics and has led it astray into the SM and QFT. Geometric algebra is easier and more physical. Fermions are not fundamental.  They are the blades of bosons.

Everyone:  there are two ways to linearize the KG equation:  Dirac's and mine.  Which do you choose?  Now you know of a second, you cannot ignore it. It requires an answer by the physics community.  Until that reckoning comes, the foundations will be mired in acrimonious, and mostly semantic, debates. Little progress is being made, solutions are really imaginative, and most are unfathomable, like Qbism and any collapse theory.  Hype is the norm, not progress. We all know the problems with the SM, so here is the resolution, the Bivector SM. 

My next paper will be on the geometrical origin of the ZBW.  

Bryan

Although the discussions here are good, my goal is to 

[Mark Hadley]

Bryan,

That's simply a set of lies.

I studied the bet at the outset, there was a date and the terms were not about publication but a claim that you would convince the majority of your peers. You have not.

Delays publishing a paper were more than compensated by the generous extra year added.

Richards role in you paper approval is no excuse. Editors choose referees and authors are invited to ask for names to be excluded.

Experts on this forum have studied the paper you presented. They all found the same flaw and explained it to you. Because of the bet your paper got enormous attention that it didn't otherwise deserve.

It was a stupid bet to have entered. It was mathematically impossible as a little research would have shown you. It was also impossible for anyone ever to get the recognition you claim in such a short time. Recognition by peers takes decades.

Pay up

Cheers

Mark 

[Richard Gill]

Bryan is very very like Putin.

Do not make bets with him. He lives in an imaginary world whose history keeps changing, his maths is largely fantasy

Sent from my iPhone

On 25 Nov 2025, at 14:31, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:



[Austin Fearnley]

Hi Bryan

It is difficult to converse under stress of bet fallouts.  But I am interested in some aspects so here goes.  Remember I am just an amateur so wish to know your interpretations.

Joy's one-page paper was criticised for using both pseudo scalars +1 and -1 in the same calculation.  I wasn't too concerned about that as the sum could be looked at in two separate halves before coming together. But there were other issues as well.

I have asked Fred if his paper also used both signs of the pseudo-scalar in the same calculation.

I loosely correlate a negative pseudo-scalar with AdS space and a positive one with dS space.  Google deep dive does not contradict that.

Is this connected in any way with your asking about 'one convex set'?  

I have not fixed definitely against cl(2,2) but prefer the other option for now.  I find it hard to believe that a photon is the only entity, which is what you appear to be saying.  How does the photon account for QCD colour charge?

I followed four or five of Cohl Furey's fascinating lectures on Octonions and the Standard Model.  Cl(0,8) ??
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvsmxUuD5ZdOGittaeosXMA

My own view is that string theory dimensions are what particles are composed of.  Not exactly knots in spacetime but interactions of a set of spacetimes moving through our spacetime at speed c, and compactified to points because of speed c. Don't ask how that affects locality.

[Fred Diether]

" Fermions are not fundamental.  They are the blades of bosons."

I think we found your problem.  That is backwards.  Yep, definitely clueless.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Mark,

We categorically disagree. So let us not discuss this.  My conscience is clear, and none of you are willing to go to the press to formalize my "error", and that speaks volumes in light of the history of bell gatekeepers. You are modern Karl Machs, defending the present to the detriment of progress.

More importantly to me than discussing the past:  have you decided which linearization of the KG equ is correct?  Mine or Dirac's.  Did Bell restrict his arguments to a single classical convex set?  Contrary to what you say, few experts have taken the trouble to understand my papers. You certainly have not. 

These are not challenging questions, but an honest answer will prove my point.  Bell's inequalities are applicable only to a single convex set.  QM has no such restriction. So Bell's inequalities are not wrong, but just not applicable to QM, unless of course, wave-particle duality does not exist.

Bryan

[Mark Hadley]

Why not discuss it, lets resolve this.

Why not give us all the wording of the bet? We can then judge for ourselves. 

Bells assumptions about hidden variables have no such restriction. I explained it to you and proved it mathematically which I shared. I can't do any more: you are wrong, I explained it, I proved it .

On Bell's Inequalities, I and others, studied the paper that you presented. It lacked any credible explanation for your model of EPR and contained a fairly obvious algebraic error that fatally undermined your work. 

The fact that you failed to acknowledge your algebraic error means that you have no credibility at all. The fact that you failed to pay the bet undermines your integrity.

Cheers

Mark

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Mark

Bell's work is classical and restricted to a single convex set.  With two sets, you get two binary streams, not one as you seem to think. My treatment makes physical sense, yours is quantum weirdness. 

I have nothing more to say. I have no interest in the bet, and I do not care about it. There are more important things to do,

Bryan

[Mark Hadley]

There is no restriction in BI to a single convex set.

BI uses  functions of any parameter space whatsoever so long as it only depends on the local angle.

That's clear in the set up and there is no qualification in any step of the derivation.

You are talking nonsense, but I invite you to show any step in Bell or preferably CHSH that has such a requirement.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Bell has one source of binary coincidences.  I have two.

Bryan

[Mark Hadley]

No. If you think that you misunderstanding his notation. 

lambda for the hidden variables can include as many sources as you want. Write A(lambda1, lambda2) if you like. It's all included in the term lambda.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

and what if those sources obey different statistics: vector and bivector?  That is,  the sources have different contextuality so they should be experimentally separable.  That is one of the experiments I suggest.  

Bryan

[Mark Hadley]

BI Are independent of what you call the statistics.

It is quite literally any function of any variables that gives the +/- results.

So that will also include sums of functions and functions of functions.

It is an incredibly general and hence powerful result.

Mark

[Richard Gill]

Irrelevant, Bryan. And you need to learn about generalised Bell inequalities. More complex scenarios. It’s all been worked out, and some of it applied to complex scenario’s like perhaps yours. Like two streams on each side, each with measurements with binary outcomes. Or one stream on each side with measurements with quaternary outcomes.

I recommend you study my survey paper 

Sent from my iPad

On 25 Nov 2025, at 20:03, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:



[Richard Gill]

Exactly. Bell-CHSH assumes local classical hidden variables, binary settings, and binary outcomes. It also assumes statistical independence of the hidden variables from the setting choices. (aka “no conspiracy”). That’s all.

There exist *generalized* Bell inequalities for other experimental protocols. For instance, there is a general recipe for deriving Bell type inequalities for the case of p parties, q settings, and r outcomes. Bell did the 2x2x2 case. GHZ is 3x2x2. Mermin is 2x3x2. CGLMP is 2x2x3.

And in principle we can study even more complicated experiments. Many have already been explored.

So once Bryan has proposed an experimental protocol in which outcomes of two types can be observed, we can determine the appropriate generalized Bell inequalities, and by simulation experiment verify that his LHV model does not violate them.

Sent from my iPhone

On 25 Nov 2025, at 20:46, Mark Hadley <sunshine...@googlemail.com> wrote:



[anton vrba]

Hi Bryan, Let’s assume for a moment that your bi-vector model is realistic and actually accounts for spin—meaning photons get spin angular momentum (SAM) the way you say they do. If that’s the case, how would your model handle orbital angular momentum (OAM) and OAM entanglement?

Here’s some reading on the topic:

• Mair, A., Vaziri, A., Weihs, G. et al. Entanglement of the orbital angular momentum states of photons. Nature 412, 313–316 (2001).

• Krenn, M., Malik, M., Erhard, M., & Zeilinger, A. Orbital angular momentum of photons and the entanglement of Laguerre–Gaussian modes. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 375 (2017).

This is a bit off the usual Bell/CHSH path, but it’s still relevant. One thing that bugs me in the usual physics literature is the “Hilbert space solves everything” attitude. When the Nature paper talks about OAM modes defining an infinitely dimensional Hilbert space, it feels like a way of avoiding giving a real physical picture.

Nevertheless, your bi-vector model doesn’t give a physical explanation for OAM or its entanglement, and you tend to brush off criticism instead of addressing it. Also, paying to publish doesn’t really strengthen the argument.

Just wanted to put this out there.

regards

Anton

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

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

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

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

Date 11/25/2025 7:03:15 PM

Subject Re: [Bell_quantum_foundations] Re: Fine Structure consant

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CALLw9YwdAw3_wdnru-yXHTP%3DWZbc7f9hrJpbw5wmRGDkKKNZyA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Austin Fearnley]

Hi Anton

Your references were meant for Bryan but I have looked at one of them in an online version as I do not have free unversity access to journals.

Krenn, M., Malik, M., Erhard, M., & Zeilinger, A.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2015.0442

I do not know whether to be amazed or say "so what".
Very amazed at the idea that one can try to use the variation in the EM envelope of a single photon in flight to store condensed information.  Like the use of radio waves to store information.

And the "so what" is the difficulty in extracting the information.  One measurement, and one bit, is all one gets from a photon, unless one could use weak measurement ... but that does not exist for a solitary photon.

But it is a very interesting paper, full of things new to me.  Thanks.

[Fred Diether]

CHSH assumes broken physics.  It's junk.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Dear Austin and Anton,

I had missed this thread earlier, but thank you both for taking the time to look at the FSC work. Although I do have a bivector model of the photon, here I am thinking specifically of electrons.

The first hurdle is that the usual QFT picture must be set aside, not easy after about a century. QFT treats spin as a chiral vector on a two-state Hilbert space. In the BiSM, spin is neither postulated nor abstracted; it is a real bivector object in 3D geometric space, with a classical origin. Classical properties become quantum not through Hilbert-space axioms, but through the geometry.  As an example, in our classical domain neutrinos do not exist, so they cannot exist in the quantum domain either. No neutrino has ever been detected in a way that does not have alternative explanations (e.g. cosmic rays). Likewise, parity, charge, and time are all independently conserved. In the BiSM, parity is not violated. The list is long.

Crucially, there is no usual superposition of spin states.  There is no wavefunction collapse.  There is also no non-local entanglement. What is usually called entanglement (i.e locally) can be removed with properly constructed non-Hermitian states,  (I worked that out more than a decade ago 

arXiv:0705.3657

so entanglement in QM is an approximation (that is why I get CHSH of 3 and qm gives 2.282--QM missed correlation).

Regarding criticism: I certainly do not intend to brush it off. I want it, and I’ve had to respond to critics for many years, often hostile one. I take every objection seriously.

On publishing: none of my papers were paid for — they were all free. I got waivers.  I chose MDPI simply because mainstream journals have been unwilling to engage with papers that reject non-locality. MDPI at least sends the work to referees who read the manuscripts.

As for physical intuition: QFT, for all its calculational success, is largely devoid of geometric understanding. The BiSM, in contrast, is geometric, visualizable, and internally consistent.

The model is laid out here:

1. The Classical Origin of Spin: Vectors Versus Bivectors
   

1. Axioms 2025, 14, 668
   https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms14090668
   — establishes the BiSM and contrasts it with the Standard Model.

This is the first application:

2. The Fine-Structure Constant in the Bivector Standard Model
   

2. Axioms 2025, 14, 841
   https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms14110841
   — first application, giving a geometric derivation of the fine-structure constant.

I am now completing the Zitterbewegung analysis, which drops out naturally from the bivector geometry. After that, my plan is to work through the successes of the Standard Model and show how they emerge from the BiSM.  My goal is to replace the SM.

This should address Anton’s point that the bivector model “doesn’t give a physical explanation for OAM.” In fact I am sure it does: everything stems from the internal bivector structure, and extending the framework to OAM is, I think, straightforward. In my view, QFT is overly mathematical and lacks physical clarity, for example no gauge bosons have ever been directly detected, and few truly understand the Higgs mechanism. The SM is overly complicated and cumbersome.  It allows for anything within some rules. The BiSM is geometrically constrained.

The only fundamental change I made to the Dirac equation is to replace the Clifford algebra Cl(1,3) with Cl(2,2). That is all,  yet the resulting geometry is entirely different, and physically sensible.

Understanding the model requires working in geometric algebra, not QFT. It is not easy to put all those ideas aside, even though GA is much simpler.

I appreciate both of you engaging with this, and I’m always happy to answer questions.  Fundamentally, you must decide if Dirac's linearization of the KG equation is correct, or whether my linearization is corrrect. Only one can be.

Best regards,

Bryan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/6a8c37d0-9db5-43ea-a06c-a04a6226b306n%40googlegroups.com.

[Richard Gill]

Dear all, I think this group is broken. I’m leaving! Auf Wiedersehen, guys. My advice to Alexandre: recruit some women to the group. 

Richard

Sent from my iPad

On 28 Nov 2025, at 18:21, Fred Diether <fredi...@gmail.com> wrote:

CHSH assumes broken physics.  It's junk.

On Wednesday, November 26, 2025 at 1:51:24 AM UTC-8 Richard Gill wrote:

Exactly. Bell-CHSH assumes local classical hidden variables, 

--

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/e03059ea-caa8-427a-a44d-11034e971f08n%40googlegroups.com.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Richard,

Good move. Keep in touch via FB,

Bryan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/21D56011-15DE-421E-8AE7-075F004C35F9%40gmail.com.

[Mark Hadley]

Dear Bryan,

What a good it is for you to admit you lost the bet and pay up.

Mark.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CALLw9Ywgp8sh%2BvuE7Gq4q-e8bRZLdyjaoNm6-LX6WaSCc%3DY0Tg%40mail.gmail.com.

[anton vrba]

WTF Bryan, where are we? Loosing a valued member is a loss and nothing to celebrate!

Dear Richard, I can understand your reaction, engaging against a delusional believe system will always frustrate a scientific mind set, best not to engage but that is against your educationalist training.

regards

Anton

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

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

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

Cc "Diether Fred" <fredi...@gmail.com>; bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com

Date 11/29/2025 2:07:50 PM

Subject Re: [Bell_quantum_foundations] Re: Fine Structure consant

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CALLw9Ywgp8sh%2BvuE7Gq4q-e8bRZLdyjaoNm6-LX6WaSCc%3DY0Tg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Fred Diether]

Yeah, Bell's theory has been goin' down the tubes for a while now so this group is probably done.  9 journals or more now agree that Bell was wrong.

But you still have Gill's theory.  :-)

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Mark, give it a rest and direct your anger elsewhere. Bryan

[Mark Hadley]

I will not rest until justice prevails.

You used this forum to promote, yourself, your ideas and your claims. You should accept the outcome with integrity.

Mark