Simulated Local EPR Correlation: CHSH = 3

Comment: These criticisms by Mark Hadley appear to be based upon a certain prejudice of viewpoint regarding Nature. He ignores, first, the remarkable agreement between the simulation results with experiment. He misses the main points of the work and clearly has not read my first paper, Extrinsic quaternion spin, (https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202302.0055/v1) which gives the QFT basis used here.

The work is most definitely not about LHV. I do not introduce a new parameter. The only local variable used was first presented in the 1920’s and given in Eq.(2). No other variables are used, and its inclusion precludes the non-local conclusion of Bell’s Theorem. The paper is not about Bell's work but has consequences, showing that his theorem requiring non-locality to explain the observations is obviated.

The main points appear lost on Hadley: the changing of spin to quaternion symmetry; the prediction of the four spatial dimensions of quaternions that have no time; the properties of spin which extend the two observed polarization states to the fourth dimensional Dirac field; the need for a bivector to explain the observations; that particles emerge that have no parity. He fails to consider that Nature might extend beyond our spacetime and our ability to directly measure attributes, and that these, nonetheless, influence our observation.

Rather he focuses on rather banal points, for example, stating the well-known CHSH formula is missing when it is clearly stated in Eq.(12) and appears in Figure (9). Not only that, but the fundamental origin of the violation of the CHSH is shown to be rationalized by quaternion spin that these papers are about. No one has ever come close to explaining this, rather attributing it to “quantum weirdness”. In my view, revelation has no place in physics.

There are parts of this draft, v2, however, which require clarification, and these will follow in v3. These changes are minor in the global framework of the papers.

I accept that the ideas used here may be too heretical for some, and their significance appears to be lost on Hadley. HIs remarks are quite banal and seem based upon a cursory reading and a result of his own bias towards the foundations of physics. To his points:

1. The treatment deals with pure states which give definite outcomes and are not probabilistic. However, probabilities do arise and are in the computer code as coincidences. With a little work, individual + and - clicks are easily extracted. Moreover, they agree with the experimental results.

2. It is unnecessary to encumber the paper with well-established expressions and data. Despite this, the treatment discusses one spin and how spin coherence, a totally new point, has been overlooked.

3. Totally wrong: my Eq.(1), which is derived in the Appendix, does just that.

4. I show that there are two complementary properties of spin. One has correlation that lies between -1 and +1; the other between -1/4 and +1/4. His comment is nonsense.

5. QM does not predict the correct correlation coefficients, otherwise all the work on the violation of Bell’s Inequalities would be moot. As he says, QM predictions do “so without any underlying explanation”. I provide that explanation, click by click in the simulation.

6. Indeed, I do just that. For each value of the filter settings, the results are obtained one coincidence at a time and added together. The magnitude of each attribute, polarization and coherence, have CHSH values of respectively 2 and 1, neither of which violates CHSH. These are discussed and illustrated in Fig.(6).

7. Please see Eq.(12) and Figure (9). The CHSH value is calculated in the usual manner in the computer code. Hadley misses this. A review of the background and formulation of CHSH is unnecessary for the audience of this paper.

8. I show that the CHSH is apparently violated by the distribution of two complementary properties, neither of which violate the CHSH. Therefore, there is no “enormous credibility to surmount”. The alternative explanation for the violation requires the use of instantaneous-action-at-a-distance, a notion both Newton and Einstein rejected. I stand on their shoulders.

9. The code snippets are included to show how elementary it is to generate the symmetric and antisymmetric properties of spin simply by knowing which way a spin spins. If offensive, I can remove them. Please see Eq.(1) and the appendix.

Comment: These criticisms by Mark Hadley appear to be based upon a certain prejudice of viewpoint regarding Nature. He ignores, first, the remarkable agreement between the simulation results with experiment. He misses the main points of the work and clearly has not read my first paper, Extrinsic quaternion spin, (https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202302.0055/v1) which gives the QFT basis used here.

The main points appear lost on him: the changing of spin to quaternion symmetry; the prediction of the four spatial dimensions of quaternions that have no time; the properties of spin which extend the two observed polarization states to the fourth dimensional Dirac field; the need for a bivector to explain the observations; that particles emerge that have no parity. He fails to consider that Nature might extend beyond our spacetime and our ability to directly measure attributes, and that these, nonetheless, influence our observation.

The work is most definitely not about LHV. The only local variable used was first presented in the 1920’s and given in Eq.(2). No other variables are used, and its inclusion obviates the non-local conclusion of Bell’s Theorem. Bell’s Inequalities, however, are used as a useful tool and a quantitative measure of correlation.

Rather Hadley focuses on rather banal points, for example, stating the well-known CHSH formula is missing when it is clearly stated in Eq.(12) and appears in Figure (9). Not only that, but the fundamental origin of the violation of the CHSH is shown to be rationalized by quaternion spin that these papers are about. No one has ever come close to explaining this, rather attributing it to “quantum weirdness”. In my view, revelation has no place in physics.

There are parts of this draft, version 2, however, which require clarification, and these will follow in v3. These changes are minor in the global framework of the papers.

I accept that the ideas used here may be too heretical for some, and their significance appears to be lost on Hadley. His remarks are quite banal and seem based upon a cursory reading and a result of his own bias towards the foundations of physics. To his points:

1. The treatment deals with pure states which give definite outcomes and are not probabilistic. However, probabilities do arise and are in the computer code as coincidences. With a little work, individual + and - clicks are easily extracted. Moreover, they agree with the experimental results.

2. It is unnecessary to encumber the paper with well-established expressions and data. Despite this, the treatment discusses one spin and how spin coherence, a totally new point, has been overlooked.

3. Totally wrong: my Eq.(1), which is derived in the Appendix, does just that.

4. I show that there are two complementary properties of spin. One has correlation that lies between -1 and +1; the other between -1/4 and +1/4. His comment is wrong.

5. QM does not predict the correct correlation coefficients, otherwise all the work on the violation of Bell’s Inequalities would be moot. As he says, QM predictions do “so without any underlying explanation”. I provide that explanation, click by click in the simulation.

6. Indeed, I do just that. For each value of the filter settings, the results are obtained one coincidence at a time and added together. The magnitude of each attribute, polarization and coherence, have CHSH values of respectively 2 and 1, neither of which violates CHSH. These are discussed and illustrated in Fig.(6).

7. Please see Eq.(12) and Figure (9). The CHSH value is calculated in the usual manner in the computer code. Hadley misses this. A review of the background and formulation of CHSH is unnecessary for the audience of this paper.

8. I show that the CHSH is apparently violated by the distribution of two complementary properties, neither of which violate the CHSH. Therefore, there is no “enormous credibility to surmount”. The alternative explanation for the violation requires the use of instantaneous-action-at-a-distance, a notion both Newton and Einstein rejected. I stand on their shoulders.

9. The code snippets are included to show how elementary it is to generate the symmetric and antisymmetric properties of spin, simply by knowing which way a spin spins. Please see Eq.(1) and the appendix.