By replacing Dirac spin with a quaternion spin, Nature becomes local and real.  Here is a paper on the simulation.

Simulated non-local EPR correlation: CHSH = 3

(I display the link because some people cannot see the colour)

I pt links in the paper, Appendix 2, to the files and two programs, mine in FORTRAN  simf_b5.f  and the other in C converted by Pierre Leroy,    simc_b5.c

Spin with hyperhelicity,

Deeper than Dirac

Quaternion spin is deeper than Dirac spanning the four dimension Dirac field of gamma matrices as one particle rather than the matter-antimatter pair DIrac proposed.

Realizing a simulation was the only way I would get my ideas accepted, I focused on that,   Over the years, I have been very grateful to have guidance from Chantal Roth.  She was particularly patient with me. She put me in contact with Pierre Leroy and he was motivational and in the course of these exchanges, he said “Only the person who knows the problem can develop the simulation.” I rolled up my sleeves and did it.

I was quite amazed how, it the end, it worked out better than I expected.  There is the problem of how Nature distinguishes polarization from coherence, but quaternion spin gives a CHSH violation of 2.995!!!  (Pierre got 3.045!!!!!!!) compared to QM with CHSH = 2.707.  The reasons for this are in the paper.  Also the determination of spin up and dn is simply the spinning of an axis R or L, as long a the axis has lined up with the field, and only one can.

The even more remarkable finding is that it looks like CHSH= 3 for Mother Nature. The reason for the 2root(2) is that QM uses entangled states and uses Dirac spin.  We are missing 10% of the correlation between EPR pairs by using QM!!  The calculation not only shows Bell’s Theorem is disproven, but also that EPR were right and QM is incomplete.

I hope you all agree and welcome comments.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

5 replies on “Simulated non-local EPR correlation: CHSH = 3”

  • Justo
    December 22, 2022 at 11:49 pm

    Hi Bryan
    I do not know quaternions and I am not much motivated to learn them. But it seems to me that it would help your cause that besides your theory and simulations you could also explain where the Bell theorem is incorrect.
    You see, the Bell theorem is a very elementary and convincing mathematical theorem, so it would be of great help for your ideas to be accepted if you point out where the error is.

    • November 24, 2023 at 2:32 pm

      Bell was not incorrect in the limits he set. That is his theorem is only applicable to classical systems not quantum. He ignores quantum complementarity.

  • December 23, 2022 at 3:49 am

    I don’t see a link to any paper, Bryan

  • Richard Gill
    December 26, 2022 at 8:00 am

    Your experiment consists of two correlated Bell experiments in parallel. Each of them admits a local hidden variables description. Thus, for each separately, “S”cannot exceed 2. When you add the correlations for the two sub-experiments, “S” cannot exceed 4. The theory and simulation is in full agreement with Bell’s theorem. The experiment described in the theory (a Bell experiment with quaternary outcomes) has never been done. The results have no bearing on the interpretation of actual Bell experiments.

    • November 24, 2023 at 2:26 pm

      I have no LHV. So you are wrong. You must look at the results and how they make sense and yours, Bell, do not.