Thank you for those who read my paper Spin with hyperhelicity, and made comments. I have commented on the Google Groups, but here I want to pull the comments together and make any remarks.

Here is my summary of responses. I am optimistic that introducing helicity has raised some interest. It is early yet for responses, but knowing that people are quick to point out errors, then silence is ok. (see below for non-silence). So far:

- No one reported any errors in my mathematics.
- No one commented on
- the changing of spin symmetry from SU(2) to Q
_{8}. - that hyperhelicity is a new and hitherto missed element of reality
- that a single spin is described by the 4×4 Dirac field.
- the new Law of Conservation of Geometric Correlation

- the changing of spin symmetry from SU(2) to Q
- Problems:
- How can you account for the violation with a click by click simulation without non-locality as expressed in Bell’s Theorem?
- The hyperhelicity is not a counterexample to disprove Bell’s Theorem.
- What are your LHV and how do they differ from Bell’s LHV?

**Quantum Weirdness**

Most comments wanted more than helicity to geometrically account for the missing correlation, and want an analysis of how, click by click, Nature builds up the correlation that violates Bell’s Inequalities. I do not know how to program this but after I posted a plausible mechanism in

I was delighted that Chantal Roth and Pierre, both super Java programmers and simulators, will have a shot. I can pretty much conclude that if we fail, it will not be because of the programming!

The challenge is that qm cannot describe incompatible elements of reality simultaneously. How can we program the polarizations and the helicity at the same time?

I do not know how to do it.

**LHV and non-local HV**

My LHV is helicity, a new or missed element of reality. This property exists and is carried on the particle. Its influence acts within the particle only. All forces associated with the particle drop off with an inverse law on separation, The helicity is hidden because it cannot be measured. It is a qm operator, or quantum variable, hence a LHV. The two particles in an EPR pair cannot influence each other after separation, they are statistically independent. They form a product state with no entanglement.

I use locality , and hence a LHV, exactly the same way as EPR used.

I do not understand Non-local hidden variables so won’t say more.

**Comments by Richard Gill**

Richard has failed to raise any serious challenge to the paper. His only objection is that hyperhelicity is not a counterexample that disprove Bell’s Theorem because “*Your “hyperhelicity” is a quantum hidden variable. Bells theorem is about classical hidden variables.” (????)*

Consider, Bell’s theorem states, “if it agrees with quantum mechanics it will not be local.”

I find it bizarre that RIchard rejects my LHV property because it is quantum???!! : He does not make sense.

However Richard and Jan-Åke Larsson want more, and in particular that click by click local realistic simulation of the EPR data. I agree with that, and glad Chantal and Pierre will have a go.

Richard has found nothing substantial. When this happens, he looks for ways to question nitty gritty things, like wanting to engage me in Linear Algebra 101 when he is more than able to answer his own questions. Then he decided to peruse my references and criticized my choices, hey, by the way, see Sabine’s views on super determinism.

With this, after a week, I remain optimistic, but understand it will take time. Thanks to those who commented.

**Next**

Spin with hyperhelicity focusses on introducing the helicity phenomenologically. The next paper, coming soon, *Non-Hermitian coherent hyperspin*, is pure QFT. Nothing about Bell at all. It gives a discussion of extending the DIrac equation from SU(2) symmetry to account for the Q_{8} .symmetry. It shows that helicity arises naturally and is given by a unit quaternion.

The surprise is that spin spacetime has time and FOUR spatial dimensions carrying both polarization and coherence, and only the vector part, **S** is projected onto our spacetime.

I do have a prediction about the this next paper which cannot be articulated better than stated by the eminent Dr. Emmet Brown:

## 4 replies on “The Non-local debate–hyperhelicity and quantum weirdness”

Bryan, I like your approach though cannot say that I followed every formula. I have a model for the electron structure and a paper (see my website) showing a simulation to bypass Bell’s Theorem. My model has a polarisation as say up or down. But there is a phase too given by gyroscopic motion. The phase can never point down if the polarisation is up, just as a gyroscope on a table top can never point at the floor. Measurement at an interaction depends on the variable phase at that measurement. Unfortunately (?) my simulation of that model did not give correlation 0.707, nor even 0.5, but gave approx 0.35. That was because of the extra variability of the phase. The average value of the phase is the polarisation, say up, and using that gives r= 0.5. To get r= 0.707 I used retrocausality. I also suggest that you obtain Chantal’s help programming as she is expert! Also, I accept Bell’s Thorem is true and one cannot defeat it. Retrocausality sidesteps Bell rather than defeats it. I am now working on a paper about time and retrocausality. Best wishes. Austin Fearnley

very interesting, and yes Chantal was very helpful.

It is not true that no-one reported errors in your mathematics. You claimed to have a counter-example to Bell’s theorem but you don’t. Bell’s theorem states that no local hidden variables model, by which he means a deterministic model in which any randomness is attributed to statistical variation in initial values of unmeasured variables, can reproduce certain statistical QM predictions, or even approximately reproduce them. You seem to have your own notions of “local” and “realistic” though you fail to make them explicit. These are major mathematical errors. Much more serious than any mistakes in computations within your chosen framework. Because of these serious errors, I, for one, have little motivation in checking those computations.

Bell proved that no CLASSICAL system can violate Bell. I do not dispute that.