The Double Slit and EPR both depend on long distance phase

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Dear All,

My paper on the Double Slit experiment has been published. It gives the “one-event-at-a-time” result.

Website:       https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1680/15/6/417
PDF Version: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1680/15/6/417/pdf

It uses the internal clock of the bivector, the ZBW, to time the path differences.  In the simulation, the events occur one at a time giving Boolean pairs, \pm 1.  Only after a statistical number has passed, is the interference observed.

I assert this manifests as two observables: individual Boolean events; and long-range correlation over the dimensions of the apparatus.

Bell only treats the Boolean events. I also maintain the long-range phase correlation by using quaternions.

It also seems to me that the EPR violation is also a slow build up of Boolean events.   Only after all the events are collected in separate bins at Alice and Bob are time stamps compared and correlation plotted. Again, the bivector approach keeps both Boolean pairs and bivector geometry.  Bell does not.

In fact, it is intriguing to think that Double Slit and EPR might be examples of one particle and two particle long-range phase effects.  These are well-known in low temp physics, superconductivity, superfluidity, BE condensate, and also LASER coherence, all involving large ensembles of collective motion, and long range phase.

I am interested in responses from this group.

Bryan

 

[Richard Gill]

Congratulations, Bryan, on the appearance of this paper.

On 4 Jun 2026, at 11:52, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:

It also seems to me that the EPR violation is also a slow build up of Boolean events.   Only after all the events are collected in separate bins at Alice and Bob are time stamps compared and correlation plotted. Again, the bivector approach keeps both Boolean pairs and bivector geometry.  Bell does not.

Experimenters doing Bell-EPR-B experiments collect time-stamped binary events and properties of those events (the setting which was in force) at two locations. After the experiment is complete, the data at the two locations is brought together to one place and the time-stamps are used to pair the events and settings at the two locations. Are you proposing that experimenters should not be calculating the correlations which they report in their papers in the usual way, but should be using some different formulas?

Actually, I am simplifying a little bit.  In experiments with so-called event ready detectors there is a third location, without a setting choice but with a binary outcome, and it is used to reduce the data set to those pairs of settings and events, for which the third location “heralded” that things, from the point of view of QM, are looking favourable for the creation of entanglement between what will be arriving soon at the other two locations. The spatial temporal location of all three measurement stations needs be such that under local realism (local hidden variables), the “post-selection” of data does not invalidate Bell’s derivation of the CHSH inequalities.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Hi Richard,

No. The experimental processing remains exactly the same. No changes necessary. The difference lies in the physical interpretation of the correlation, not in the data reduction procedure.

In my approach with quaternions, there is no superposition, no wave function collapse, and you must forget about your usual notions of spin (no QFT).  Here it is simply a rotor and GA.

Bryan

[Richard Gill]

Dear Bryan

In a Bell local hidden variable model there is no superposition, no wave function collapse, no QFT, no notion of spin at all. Bell is interested in the question whether the negative cosine could occur under what he calls “local causality” and what I call “classical local causality”. 

I’m looking forward to seeing your simulation experiment. How you create the data and how you calculate the correlations. How anybody interprets them is up to them.

If you calculate the correlations from binary data in the usual way, then the way your create the binary data is the only thing I need to look at. I’ve told you exactly how I will do that. I will do an N=1 experiment with lambda = seed of the random number generator. Your program will compute x and y from lambda, a, and b.

Richard

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Richard,

I am fully aware that Bell is completely classical with no quantum effects.  You again state the obvious.  I am not comparing Bell to anything, you missed the point.  I am saying that spin, as commonly defined, has superposition, wave function collapse, and postulated as purely quantum.  Those notions must be put aside in the Bivector approach.

I surmise you will not read the Double Slit paper.  Here is what a one of the three reviewers said:

Recommendation: accept with minor revisions — the work is mathematically self-consistent, candid about the model's limitations, and of genuine interest to the ongoing debate on the interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Bryan

[Richard Gill]

I am not criticising the paper. I am not qualified to do so. I agree it seems to be of genuine interest, and I don’t doubt that the maths is correct.

I am looking forward to seeing your simulation of an EPR-B experiment using your bivector approach. 

I’ve explained to you what I will be looking for. I’m not interested in a new theory of spin. I am interested in what it says about EPR and Bell, if anything.

You wrote the following "It also seems to me that the EPR violation is also a slow build up of Boolean events.   Only after all the events are collected in separate bins at Alice and Bob are time stamps compared and correlation plotted. Again, the bivector approach keeps both Boolean pairs and bivector geometry.  Bell does not”.

I am wondering how bivector geometry can be brought into this. I’m sceptical. You yourself perfectly understand Bell’s theorem now and no longer reject his maths.

--
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/CALLw9Yz3TJBG-JeycOFwrcjqt8EAR2%3DC%2BKZyU%2B%2BKuiJr%3DKi7nQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Richard,

LOL you finally admit I understand Bell and say " You yourself perfectly understand Bell’s theorem now and no longer reject his maths."  I always did and never rejected his math!!!!  I just reject the absurd idea of non-locality, and you put up your objections.

Here is the crux:  There is no non-local communication. All that happens is Alice and Bob carry the same coherent phase. It persists over spacetime. Phase replaces entanglement.  Neither spin knows the phase of the other.  That phase is just a Lorentz scalar carried by both.

That is what Bell missed,

Tomorrow I will send the EPR program that shows quaternions persist until detection. No add/average issue. 

Bryan

[Richard Gill]

Wonderful!

The EPR program with no non-locality; with +/-1 outcomes; no changing the rules as to how correlations are calculated. No post-selection. 

As you know I think that Bell shows that this is impossible. I suspect that “persistence of coherent phase over spacetime” is used to hide non locality.

We will see.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Richard,

You have already decided the bivector approach is non-local.  You have stated so several times.  I do have connectivity, (correlation) between Alice and Bob, but it is just a scalar phase over spacetime.  A phase does not give non-locality.

Bryan

[Richard Gill]

I have not *decided* anything. I’ve told you my honest prior opinion and I have given you my scientific reasoning.

I’ve moreover told you exactly what I plan to do.

I plan to perform certain simple tests on your computer program. Consider it a “forensic audit”. Is that forbidden?

I don’t know what you mean by “persistence of coherent phase over spacetime” means, but I hope I will learn that from your computer code and your written-up theoretical explanation.

I will do an N=1 experiment with lambda = seed of the random number generator. Your program will compute x and y from lambda, a, and b. I’ll repeat this with various choices of a, b, lambda. Is that allowed?

[Richard Gill]

On 4 Jun 2026, at 13:41, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> it is just a scalar phase over spacetime. A phase does not give non-locality.

Then you have nothing to worry about!

[Mark Hadley]

a phase function where boundary conditions include the settings at A and B is non local 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CALLw9Yz5dN-A8NOwOPAemSXm5sPqHz77Onc16exvc-JQfV%3DP5A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Richard Gill]

Mark, can you explain “what is a phase function”? Does it have to have boundary conditions?

Sent from my iPhone

On 4 Jun 2026, at 16:24, Mark Hadley <sunshine...@googlemail.com> wrote:



[Mark Hadley]

I'm guessing what is meant and there may be more than one interpretation. I would guess at f(x) where X is a position in spacetime and F is a phase 0 to 360. 

presumably the phase is the solution of some sort of equation. and I'd expect that solution to require boundary conditions.

but let's see 

mark

[Austin Fearnley]

I have looked only briefly at your paper.  I assume that the idea of travelling over all possible paths is not needed in your version of the spinning clock vector.  I am unclear how the inteference pattern can build up one at a time.  

I am also very unclear about your simulation wrt Bell.  I assume you are aiming at S = 2.8 while retaining locality and reality.  This clearly cannot occur and I am not sure why you want to keep locality and reality.  QM apparently gets 2.8 but IMO ditches locality (possibly) and classical reality.  After some simulations I opted for retrocausality.  At present I am trying to adapt TSVF to my preon model.  TSVF has operators to evolve forwards-in-time state vectors and backwards-in-time state vectors.  I can aim to replace the external operators by internal preons.  For a R.H. electron preons A, C and B are moving forwards in time and (anti)preon B' is moving backwards in time. 

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Hi Austin,

Thanks for your thoughts. The channels are always there, the number of particles that travel them is unimportant. The probabilities stay the same.  I hope I explained it well in the paper.

For Bell, my focus is on spin. What I have found is that in addition to Boolean outputs, there is also an underlying phase coherence that cannot be described by single particles. 

I will post my Bell paper tonight.  I wrote it for this group. 

Best wishes

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/c306e734-f7d1-4bdb-9d03-3777a50a9ce6n%40googlegroups.com.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Dear All,

I attach a "position paper" explaining this idea of Instantiation".  I also include the simulation. 

Some might want to jump to say the work is non-local because of Equation 19, but before saying that, please read sections 7.1 and 7.2.  There is no non-locality here and any suggestions there is must be clearly explained so I can answer.

The point is that there is a global phase over the apparatus.  Alice and Bob carry the same Lorentz invariant scalar that correlates them. For given settings a and b, the geometry of the bivector changes. This is only found after collecting a statistical number of particles, combining them into coincidences of  equal and unequal, counting them and plotting them.  Only then is the phase observed. Also note the phase emerges long after the experiment is over; the bins at Alice and Bob are filled and labeled give no hint of the correlation that lies between them.

Post analysis of this data reveals the cosine correlation.  I argue that quaternions keep both the miscroscopic Boolean events, but also by maintaining those instantiated planes, they also maintain the geometry.  Bell's treatment does not.

Interested in all comments,

Bryan

[Richard Gill]

Bryan

Please email me the text file of the Fortran code. I can’t run what you have sent me without massive editing. The Quotation Marks all need to be fixed.

Richard

Sent from my iPad

On 5 Jun 2026, at 01:26, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:



Dear All,

I attach a "position paper" explaining this idea of Instantiation".  I also include the simulation. 

Some might want to jump to say the work is non-local because of Equation 19, but before saying that, please read sections 7.1 and 7.2.  There is no non-locality here and any suggestions there is must be clearly explained so I can answer.

The point is that there is a global phase over the apparatus.  Alice and Bob carry the same Lorentz invariant scalar that correlates them. For given settings a and b, the geometry of the bivector changes. This is only found after collecting a statistical number of particles, combining them into coincidences of  equal and unequal, counting them and plotting them.  Only then is the phase observed. Also note the phase emerges long after the experiment is over; the bins at Alice and Bob are filled and labeled give no hint of the correlation that lies between them.

Post analysis of this data reveals the cosine correlation.  I argue that quaternions keep both the miscroscopic Boolean events, but also by maintaining those instantiated planes, they also maintain the geometry.  Bell's treatment does not.

Interested in all comments,

Bryan

On Thu, Jun 4, 2026 at 5:52 AM Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear All,

My paper on the Double Slit experiment has been published. It gives the “one-event-at-a-time” result.

Website:       https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1680/15/6/417
PDF Version: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1680/15/6/417/pdf

It uses the internal clock of the bivector, the ZBW, to time the path differences.  In the simulation, the events occur one at a time giving Boolean pairs, \pm 1.  Only after a statistical number has passed, is the interference observed.

I assert this manifests as two observables: individual Boolean events; and long-range correlation over the dimensions of the apparatus.

Bell only treats the Boolean events. I also maintain the long-range phase correlation by using quaternions.

It also seems to me that the EPR violation is also a slow build up of Boolean events.   Only after all the events are collected in separate bins at Alice and Bob are time stamps compared and correlation plotted. Again, the bivector approach keeps both Boolean pairs and bivector geometry.  Bell does not.

In fact, it is intriguing to think that Double Slit and EPR might be examples of one particle and two particle long-range phase effects.  These are well-known in low temp physics, superconductivity, superfluidity, BE condensate, and also LASER coherence, all involving large ensembles of collective motion, and long range phase.

I am interested in responses from this group.

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/CALLw9YwJN7Arh%3DmpTdt9Y69atdbdnuejgAUCqG%2BVzv9dxCo%3DuQ%40mail.gmail.com.

<Contextual Instantiation.pdf>

[Richard Gill]

Dear all

Bryan fixes Bob’s angle at zero and picks Alice’s angle repeatedly and uniformly at random between 0 and 2 pi

The “Common phase” is then identically equal to Alice’s angle. Effectively, both measurement stations “know”, in advance, the difference between the two measurement angles. Bryan does not generate outcomes x and y separately but, cutting to the chase, directly simulates the binary property “same or opposite” of the pair. He literally calculates  - cos(alpha - beta)  in order to get the probability of “equal”, which he calls “psame”.

Richard

PS The important part of the code is:

I’m reminded of Shelley’s poem “Ozymandius”.

I met a Traveller from an antique land,

Who said, “Two vast and trunkless legs of stone

Stand in the desart. Near them, on the sand,

Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,

And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,

Tell that its sculptor well those passions read,

Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,

The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed:

And on the pedestal these words appear:

“My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings.”

Look on my works ye Mighty, and despair!

No thing beside remains. Round the decay

Of that Colossal Wreck, boundless and bare,

The lone and level sands stretch far away.

Sent from my iPad

On 5 Jun 2026, at 01:26, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:



Dear All,

I attach a "position paper" explaining this idea of Instantiation".  I also include the simulation. 

Some might want to jump to say the work is non-local because of Equation 19, but before saying that, please read sections 7.1 and 7.2.  There is no non-locality here and any suggestions there is must be clearly explained so I can answer.

The point is that there is a global phase over the apparatus.  Alice and Bob carry the same Lorentz invariant scalar that correlates them. For given settings a and b, the geometry of the bivector changes. This is only found after collecting a statistical number of particles, combining them into coincidences of  equal and unequal, counting them and plotting them.  Only then is the phase observed. Also note the phase emerges long after the experiment is over; the bins at Alice and Bob are filled and labeled give no hint of the correlation that lies between them.

Post analysis of this data reveals the cosine correlation.  I argue that quaternions keep both the miscroscopic Boolean events, but also by maintaining those instantiated planes, they also maintain the geometry.  Bell's treatment does not.

Interested in all comments,

Bryan

On Thu, Jun 4, 2026 at 5:52 AM Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear All,

My paper on the Double Slit experiment has been published. It gives the “one-event-at-a-time” result.

Website:       https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1680/15/6/417
PDF Version: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1680/15/6/417/pdf

It uses the internal clock of the bivector, the ZBW, to time the path differences.  In the simulation, the events occur one at a time giving Boolean pairs, \pm 1.  Only after a statistical number has passed, is the interference observed.

I assert this manifests as two observables: individual Boolean events; and long-range correlation over the dimensions of the apparatus.

Bell only treats the Boolean events. I also maintain the long-range phase correlation by using quaternions.

It also seems to me that the EPR violation is also a slow build up of Boolean events.   Only after all the events are collected in separate bins at Alice and Bob are time stamps compared and correlation plotted. Again, the bivector approach keeps both Boolean pairs and bivector geometry.  Bell does not.

In fact, it is intriguing to think that Double Slit and EPR might be examples of one particle and two particle long-range phase effects.  These are well-known in low temp physics, superconductivity, superfluidity, BE condensate, and also LASER coherence, all involving large ensembles of collective motion, and long range phase.

I am interested in responses from this group.

Bryan

 

--

[Mark Hadley]

Bryan,

your words describe a non local mechanism. it is unremarkable that you can recreate the observed correlation with this effect.

a bit like DeBroglie Bohm setting a wave function over all space that depends on both settings.

--

[Bryan Sanctuary]

the code is attached

Bryan

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Dear Mark,

Not only are  you hostile and belligerent, you make comments with no basis.  I am happy to get constructive comments.  You have absolutely nothing of interest to say to me.  I am sure you have not attempted to understand what I am saying. Your choice, 

I can predict your reply, so please don't.  

Bryan

[Richard Gill]

Dear all, dear Bryan

I’ve been able to compile Bryan’s Fortran code and run it. It works just fine.

Here is the main part of the code.

For each setting pair, it computes the negative cosine and uses this to compute the probabilities of “equal” and “unequal”.

It simulates many random draws of a binary with those probabilities, using their outcomes to approximate the probabilities with relative frequencies, and then it draws the graph of the relative frequencies. As I said:

Bryan fixes Bob’s angle at zero and picks Alice’s angle repeatedly and uniformly at random between 0 and 2 pi

The “Common phase” is then identically equal to Alice’s angle. Effectively, both measurement stations “know”, in advance, the difference between the two measurement angles. Bryan does not generate outcomes x and y separately but, cutting to the chase, directly simulates the binary property “same or opposite” of the pair.

He literally calculates  - cos(alpha - beta)  in order to get the probability of “equal”, which he calls “psame”. Then he simulates random drawings of that binary random variable in order to re-calculate that probability by Monte-Carlo.

Richard

PS There are free online tools for converting Fortran code to whatever you like, eg R or Python or C. The program takes a minute or so to run because, 200000 times, it generates Alice’s angle at random, calculates the negative cosine to get the probability of “equal", draws a binary variable using another uniform and that just calculated probability of equal. It could be made much faster by avoiding all the sorting and binning.

      integer ntrial

      parameter (ntrial = 200000)

      pi  = 4.0d0*datan(1.0d0)

      deg = pi/180.0d0

do 100 i=1,ntrial

         call random_number(r)

         theta = 2.0d0*pi*r

c        Choose theta_B = 0 and theta_A = a-b.  The absolute angle is

c        irrelevant for the product, but the common phase is retained.

         thRad = theta

         phiA = thABRad - thRad

         phiB = 0.0d0   - thRad

         scalarAB = -dcos(phiA - phiB)

         psame = (1.0d0 + scalarAB)/2.0d0

         call random_number(r)

         if (r .le. psame) then

            nsame = nsame + 1

         else

            nopp = nopp + 1

         endif

         ntot = ntot + 1

100   continue

      E = dble(nsame - nopp)/dble(ntot)

      return

      end

<image0.jpeg>

[Leo]

Dear Bryan,

I skimmed your attached paper. Maybe i missed it, but there is no map to +1/-1 outcomes. Only a correlation constructed from continuous functiions. This is exactly what Joy Christian does. When you say "The probabilities are therefore not introduced independently, but arise directly from the quaternionic rotor geometry.", this is not a derivation, but an assumption. You simply set the probabilities to be equal the scalar part of the quaternion. What happens to the vector part? As usual, the problem is not coming up with continuous functions that give the cosine. The problem is recovering a map to scalars that also reduces to the cosines in the limit.

[Richard Gill]

You didn’t miss it. Your analysis, Leo, is correct.

It is confirmed by the computer program code.

Bryan calculates the cosine explicitly and then uses it to simulate the cosine curve by Monte Carlo. Bit of a long way round to draw a cosine.

Sent from my iPhone

On 5 Jun 2026, at 14:28, Leo <leo_...@hotmail.it> wrote:

Dear Bryan,

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/ac6b7096-4900-473a-9b70-933f63cd1ee3n%40googlegroups.com.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

  Hi Leo, 

Thanks, and that is a fair point about the present write-up: the final instantiation into explicit Boolean detector pairs was not made explicit enough. The quaternionic rotor gives the local phase geometry up to the detector, but the last step should be written as a detector map producing (A=\pm1) and (B=\pm1) events before the correlation is formed. That is easy to implement and I will make it explicit before submitting. The body of the text, section 7, expresses the algorithm, and is what the program is supposed to implement.

The essential point remains: Bell begins with scalar Boolean variables, whereas here the Boolean events are the final detector instantiations of an underlying quaternionic rotor geometry.  I hope you will study that mechanism,

Best wishes

Bryan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/ac6b7096-4900-473a-9b70-933f63cd1ee3n%40googlegroups.com.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Richard,

Maybe drawn out, but that seems to be the way Nature does it..

I explained instantiation.  I would welcome your comments.

Bryan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/00D80FB4-5284-4F1B-A44A-87C5A27B28A1%40gmail.com.

[Richard Gill]

Dear Bryan

You asked for a comment.

My comment is that your “explanation” of instantiation makes no sense to me at all. I think you are fooling yourself. I think the majority of our peers will agree with me.

Richard

Sent from my iPhone

On 5 Jun 2026, at 14:57, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:



[Mark Hadley]

dear Bryan

I'm trying to be helpful.

I'm a scientist reading your words, that's how they will be interpreted. If you mean something different then you should think about a different choice of words.

of course I am hostile, you cheated on the bet. Pay up. we invested a lot of effort into your ideas because if the bet. Your claims in the bet were impossible for anyone to achieve with any theory in the timescale agreed in the bet.

I have no idea why Richard was so generous letting you have another year.nBut anyway you lost. pay up.

I myself am looking at a theory with a global scalar field. it gives non locality and makes some interesting predictions.

mark

[Richard Gill]

PS. There is a second loop, *outside* this one, of length 73 = 72 +1. That’s because he wants to collect data in bins of size 5 degrees

If a student if mine wrote code like this in a computational statistics research project, I would fail them.

I have the following recommendations to Bryan: in real experiments, experimenters control the settings. I would suggest letting both Alice and Bob use settings of whole numbers of degrees. They might as well use them systematically. Moreover, by rotational symmetry, you might as well keep Bob’s setting fixed at 0 degrees and have a main loop where Alice’s setting goes from 0 to 359 in 1 degree steps. Inside that loop, you could each time do, eg 10 000 trials. Since you could indeed simultaneously (10 000 times) choose between “equal” and “opposite”. You could independently of that have Alice’s outcome = +/-1 with equal probabilities. After that, define Bob’s outcome as the obvious function of Alice’s and of equal/opposite. With a modern language where one operates on vectors or arrays you could this way create 360 x 10 000 sets a, b, x, y in a flash. 

I think “long distance phase” is another name for “spooky action at a distance”. But one could also interpret it as retrocausality, or as superdeterminism. 

Sent from my iPad

On 5 Jun 2026, at 14:18, Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear all, dear Bryan

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Dear Richard,

You said

"I think “long distance phase” is another name for “spooky action at a distance”. But one could also interpret it as retrocausality, or as superdeterminism. "

It is of no interest what you think.  It is not spooky action as I explain in sections 7.1 and 7.2 which I told you about and you ignore.  Phase is a Lorentz invariant scalar.  You have no idea what you are talking about to suggest retrocausality and superdeterminism.  Please do not talk off the top of your head.  You must point to my equations, (in context) and show why you think this or that.

If you wish to make such statements, please provide the objective reasons for them.  As stated, I cannot respond because I have no idea why you conclude that.

Bryan

[Mark Hadley]

Bryan,

what you have described is manifestly "spooky action at a distance" Your algorithm  cannot determine the results at A without knowing the setting at B and vice versa.

As for the relationship with Lorentz invariance, we would need to know what the field equation was for the phase. If A or B changes settings how does the phase change with time. Doe it travel with some wave equation at the speed of light? or is it instantaneous.

Cheers

Mark

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CALLw9Yyop9OY8vyhcXeWTXPWUygOEYW8x%2Brs8g1hx1RutRSfOg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mark Hadley]

Dear Bryan,

You presented an explanation for EPR years back when you claimed to have won the bet. That work was much discredited. Have you now recognized the fatal flaws in that paper, and moved on to a new theory?

Mark

On Fri, 5 Jun 2026, 17:49 Bryan Sanctuary, <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CALLw9Yyop9OY8vyhcXeWTXPWUygOEYW8x%2Brs8g1hx1RutRSfOg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Mark,

Please read the papers for the answers.

Bryan

[Richard Gill]

Dear Bryan

I’ll say what I like. You don’t have to respond. I’ve studied your equations and your maths. The words you write don’t match your equations.

Richard

Sent from my iPad

On 5 Jun 2026, at 17:49, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:



[Richard Gill]

On 5 Jun 2026, at 17:49, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It is not spooky action as I explain in sections 7.1 and 7.2 which I told you about and you ignore. Phase is a Lorentz invariant scalar.

I read 7.1 and 7.2 again. The sections are full of bold assertions without any justification. The formulas are not particularly interesting or relevant to the text. Yes, you can rewrite the QM formula for an EPR-B correlation in GA terms instead of the usual Hilbert space structure. You write an imaginative, poetic story around the formulas. Your computer code tells a different story. As I said, in the simulation you insert the negative cosine by hand and pull it out again in an incredibly clumsy, long-winded way. You didn’t even bother to create the binary measurement outcomes, they can only be added afterwards, as an afterthought. The only way to see the code as a physical mechanism of the emergence of the correlations, is through imagining the difference between a and b as being physically available at both measurement locations in advance, and the “equal/opposite” characteristic of the pair of outcomes as being available there too.

It is a completion of the QM story of the EPR-B experiment with a non-local hidden variable.

Richard

[Mark Hadley]

why would I read them?

Your own description makes them of no interest to me.

There are a million papers to read. I can't read them all. if a title or abstract says "EPR correlations are explained using a global phase" then I'm not going to read it.

in addition, if I know the author has already been caught out making false claims, then I'm certainly not going to read it.

Do you know admit that your first attempt at an explanation was flawed. ( it didn't have a global phase, so I presume you have introduced that to try a different approach.)

Cheers

Mark 

[Richard Gill]

Dear all, including Bryan of course,

I’ve simplified Bryan's simulation program in the following way:

I have a loop of length 361 corresponding to setting angle alpha, in degrees, running from 0 to 360 in whole numbers of degrees

Setting angle beta is fixed at zero.

I compute c = - cos(alpha - beta) for each alpha, beta pair. This is where the long distance phase comes in.

Then for each alpha, beta pair:

I generate a vector X of 1000 outcomes x as fair Hadamard’s (ie, +/-1 valued variables, equal probabilities)
I generate a vector XY of 1000 outcomes-to-be of x * y as Hadamard’s with probability (1 +/- c)/2
I define Y = X * XY (elementwise multiplication of outcomes x with outcomes-to-be x*y delivers outcomes y)
Then for each alpha, beta pair I calculate the correlation as sum(x * y) / 1000

There are 16 lines of code and they run in a flash

No time is wasted, or noise is introduced, by sorting and binning. I generated altogether 361 * 1000 setting and outcome pairs a, b, x, y in a flash.

Richard