Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Quaternion Spin: From Bell to Baryogenesis

Bryan Sanctuary

Published Oct 24, 2024• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Changing the symmetry of spin from SU(2) to the quaternion group, Q8, introduces Q-spin which has a number of ramifications. We first summarize the properties of Q-spin and then discuss some of those resulting changes. Many are counter to well-established ideas which change our view of the microscopic. Dirac’s matter-antimatter pair is challenged, being replaced by a 2D structured spin. His negative energy issue and the baryon asymmetry problem are resolved; parity is not violated in beta decay, and the existence of neutrinos is questioned. Bell’s theorem is disproven by counter example, restoring Local Realism to Nature. The singlet state is an approximation; teleportation is not feasible, quantum computing must change to remove teleportation and focus on the qubit form of Q-spin which gives deterministic outcomes of ±1. This impinges on the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, and we discuss the reasons for the failure of Bell’s theorem; the use of Hidden Variables, wave function collapse and explain the violation of Bell’s Inequalities by showing Q-spin is a boson of odd parity in free flight, and a fermion of even parity in a polarizing field. The violation of Bell’s Inequalities is due to an anyon transition between a boson and a fermion, formulating wave-particle duality. These changes are a result of compexifying the Dirac field.

DOI
10.20944/preprints202410.1914.v1

Related papers

Spin Helicity and the Disproof of Bell’s Theorem

Bryan Sanctuary

Under the quaternion group, Q8, spin helicity emerges as a crucial element of the reality of spin and is complementary to its polarization. We show that the correlation in EPR coincidence experiments is conserved upon separation from a singlet state and distributed between its polarization and coherence. Including helicity accounts for the violation of Bell’s Inequalities without non-locality, and disproves Bell’s Theorem by a counterexample.

arXiv:2504.06302•Quantum Reports•Aug 21, 2024•5 citations

Non-Local EPR Correlations using Quaternion Spin

B. C. Sanctuary

Abstract A statistical simulation is presented which reproduces the correlation obtained from EPR coincidence experiments without non-local connectivity. We suggest that spin carries two complementary properties. In addition to the spin polarization, we identify spin coherence. This spin attribute is anti-symmetric and generates the helicity. In addition this spin has structure formed from two orthogonal magnetic moments. From these, a resonance spin results from their coupling in free flight. Upon encountering a filter, the resonance spin 1 decouples back into two independent spins of ½, with one aligning with the filter and the other randomizing. The process of decoupling the resonance spin is responsible for the quantum correlation which results in the observe violation of Bell's Inequalities. The polarized states give a CHSH value of 2 while the resonance spin give a CHSH value of 1. Coherence can only be formulated by the existence of a bivector which gives a spin the same geometric structure as a photon. Although this work is not about Bell's theorem, we note that there are no hidden variables (HV). The only local variable is the angle that orients a spin on the Bloch sphere, first identified in the 1920's. The new features introduced are changing the spin symmetry from SU(2) to the quaternion group, Q8, and the introduction of a bivector into spin which leads to an element of reality which is anti-Hermitian. The calculations use standard spin algebra, and properties of quaternions. March 28, 2023

•Apr 11, 2023•0 citations

Spin Helicity

Bryan Sanctuary

Under the quaternion group, $Q_8$, spin helicity emerges as an element of reality, and complementary to spin polarization. Here we show that the correlation in EPR coincidence experiments is conserved upon separation from a singlet, being divided between polarization and coherence. Including helicity accounts for the violation of Bell's Inequalities without non-locality.

•Jun 17, 2024•3 citations

The Assumptions of Bell's Proof

Roderich Tumulka

While it is widely agreed that Bell's theorem is an important result in the foundations of quantum physics, there is much disagreement about what exactly Bell's theorem shows. It is agreed that Bell derived a contradiction with experimental facts from some list of assumptions, thus showing that at least one of the assumptions must be wrong; but there is disagreement about what the assumptions were that went into the argument. In this paper, I make a few points in order to help clarify the situation. Introduction Different authors have expressed very different views about what Bell's theorem shows about physics. The disagreement concerns particularly the question of which assumptions go into the argument. Since we have to give up one of the assumptions leading to the empirically violated Bell inequality, knowing what the assumptions were is crucial. For example, if author X believes that the argument requires only one assumption, A 1 , while author Y believes that it requires two, A 1 and A 2 , then X will conclude that A 1 ¬ must be abandoned, while Y will conclude that either A 1 or A 2 must abandoned, so A 1 may well be true in our world if A 2 is false. In this paper, I consider several assumptions that have been mentioned in connection with Bell's theorem, and I look into their roles in the proof of Bell's theorem. While I do not say anything here that has never been said before, I hope that my remarks can nevertheless be helpful to some readers. For the sake of definiteness, the version of the relevant experiment that I will consider involves two spin-1\2 particles, initially in the singlet spin state ψ = 2 −1/2 (|↑↓ ⟩ − |↓↑ ⟩). Two widely separated experimenters, Alice and Bob, have one particle transported to each of them. At spacelike separation, they each choose a direction in space, represented by the unit vectors a and b , and carry out a quantum measurement of the spin observable in this direction on their particle, ( a · σ ) ⊗ I and I ⊗ ( b · σ ), with I the 2 × 2 unit matrix and σ the triple of Paulimatrices. The possible outcomes, A and B , are±1 on each side. Bell's theorem is the statement that under the assumptions we are about to discuss, Bell's inequality holds; quantum theory predicts violations of Bell's inequality, and experiments have confirmed these predictions.

arXiv:1501.04168•Cambridge University Press eBooks•Aug 31, 2016•12 citations

Ontology of quantum correlation: hidden parameter for a pair or an ensemble?

Andrey A. Gribkov

The article is dedicated to the analysis of the ontological status of the hidden parameter λ in the context of Bell's theorem and quantum correlations. In the standard formulation of Bell's inequalities, the hidden parameter is attributed to an individual pair of entangled particles: it is assumed that λ determines the measurement outcomes for each specific pair and, therefore, serves as the carrier of correlation at the level of a single event. This interpretation gives rise to a well-known dilemma: the violation of Bell's inequalities in an experiment is interpreted as evidence of the impossibility of any local realistic theory, leading to conclusions about the non-locality of nature or a rejection of realism. The subject of this study is the very legitimacy of attributing the hidden parameter to an individual pair of particles. The question is posed: is λ a property of a single pair or a characteristic of a statistical ensemble? The problem is considered in the context of the classical philosophical opposition between the singular and the general, as well as the mereological relationship between parts and the whole in relation to the quantum-mechanical description of reality. A conceptual analysis of the mathematical structure of Bell's theorem is employed, along with a comparison of the ontological assumptions of the standard and ensemble interpretations, as well as a philosophical analysis of the levels of realization of correlation. The scientific novelty of the work lies in the explicit formulation of the question regarding the level of ontological belonging of the hidden parameter—a question that is typically not addressed in standard discussions around Bell's theorem. It is shown that attributing λ to an individual pair of particles represents not an experimentally justified fact, but an ontological assumption embedded in the formalism at the stage of its construction. This assumption predetermines the interpretation of the results: the violation of Bell's inequalities is perceived as a collapse of local realism only under the condition that correlation must be realized at the level of a single pair. If the correlation is realized at the level of the ensemble—through the structure of the distribution ρ(λ)—then the violation of Bell's inequalities indicates not non-locality, but the inadequacy of an individual ontology of the hidden parameter. The conclusion is that the standard interpretation of Bell's theorem conflates two ontological levels of description, and a correct delineation of these levels removes the necessity of choosing between non-locality and a rejection of realism.

Философская мысль•Jul 22, 2026•0 citations

Spin: Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Dirac, Bell

Edwin Eugene Klingman

In Quantum Spin and Local Reality (QSLR) I show that Bell suppressed key physical phenomena to arrive at his inequality. As a result Bell's conclusions are incorrect — his model fails to match reality. Bell's defense is based on quantum mechanical eigenvalue equations with reference to Dirac. I briefly review some issues in the history of spin, and analyze the non-relativistic Stern-Gerlach eigenvalue equation and the relativistic Dirac equation, and show their relevance to Bell.

•Nov 1, 2014•0 citations
Changing the symmetry of spin from SU(2) to the quaternion group, Q8, introduces Q-spin which has a number of ramifications. We first summarize the properties of Q-spin and then discuss some of those resulting changes. Many are counter to well-established ideas which change our view of the microscopic. Dirac’s matter-antimatter pair is challenged, being replaced by a 2D structured spin. His negative energy issue and the baryon asymmetry problem are resolved; parity is not violated in beta decay, and the existence of neutrinos is questioned. Bell’s theorem is disproven by counter example, restoring Local Realism to Nature. The singlet state is an approximation; teleportation is not feasible, quantum computing must change to remove teleportation and focus on the qubit form of Q-spin which gives deterministic outcomes of ±1. This impinges on the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, and we discuss the reasons for the failure of Bell’s theorem; the use of Hidden Variables, wave function collapse and explain the violation of Bell’s Inequalities by showing Q-spin is a boson of odd parity in free flight, and a fermion of even parity in a polarizing field. The violation of Bell’s Inequalities is due to an anyon transition between a boson and a fermion, formulating wave-particle duality. These changes are a result of compexifying the Dirac field.
Abstract A statistical simulation is presented which reproduces the correlation obtained from EPR coincidence experiments without non-local connectivity. We suggest that spin carries two complementary properties. In addition to the spin polarization, we identify spin coherence. This spin attribute is anti-symmetric and generates the helicity. In addition this spin has structure formed from two orthogonal magnetic moments. From these, a resonance spin results from their coupling in free flight. Upon encountering a filter, the resonance spin 1 decouples back into two independent spins of ½, with one aligning with the filter and the other randomizing. The process of decoupling the resonance spin is responsible for the quantum correlation which results in the observe violation of Bell's Inequalities. The polarized states give a CHSH value of 2 while the resonance spin give a CHSH value of 1. Coherence can only be formulated by the existence of a bivector which gives a spin the same geometric structure as a photon. Although this work is not about Bell's theorem, we note that there are no hidden variables (HV). The only local variable is the angle that orients a spin on the Bloch sphere, first identified in the 1920's. The new features introduced are changing the spin symmetry from SU(2) to the quaternion group, Q8, and the introduction of a bivector into spin which leads to an element of reality which is anti-Hermitian. The calculations use standard spin algebra, and properties of quaternions. March 28, 2023
Under the quaternion group, Q8Q_8Q8​, spin helicity emerges as an element of reality, and complementary to spin polarization. Here we show that the correlation in EPR coincidence experiments is conserved upon separation from a singlet, being divided between polarization and coherence. Including helicity accounts for the violation of Bell's Inequalities without non-locality.
While it is widely agreed that Bell's theorem is an important result in the foundations of quantum physics, there is much disagreement about what exactly Bell's theorem shows. It is agreed that Bell derived a contradiction with experimental facts from some list of assumptions, thus showing that at least one of the assumptions must be wrong; but there is disagreement about what the assumptions were that went into the argument. In this paper, I make a few points in order to help clarify the situation. Introduction Different authors have expressed very different views about what Bell's theorem shows about physics. The disagreement concerns particularly the question of which assumptions go into the argument. Since we have to give up one of the assumptions leading to the empirically violated Bell inequality, knowing what the assumptions were is crucial. For example, if author X believes that the argument requires only one assumption, A 1 , while author Y believes that it requires two, A 1 and A 2 , then X will conclude that A 1 ¬ must be abandoned, while Y will conclude that either A 1 or A 2 must abandoned, so A 1 may well be true in our world if A 2 is false. In this paper, I consider several assumptions that have been mentioned in connection with Bell's theorem, and I look into their roles in the proof of Bell's theorem. While I do not say anything here that has never been said before, I hope that my remarks can nevertheless be helpful to some readers. For the sake of definiteness, the version of the relevant experiment that I will consider involves two spin-1\2 particles, initially in the singlet spin state ψ = 2 −1/2 (|↑↓ ⟩ − |↓↑ ⟩). Two widely separated experimenters, Alice and Bob, have one particle transported to each of them. At spacelike separation, they each choose a direction in space, represented by the unit vectors a and b , and carry out a quantum measurement of the spin observable in this direction on their particle, ( a · σ ) ⊗ I and I ⊗ ( b · σ ), with I the 2 × 2 unit matrix and σ the triple of Paulimatrices. The possible outcomes, A and B , are±1 on each side. Bell's theorem is the statement that under the assumptions we are about to discuss, Bell's inequality holds; quantum theory predicts violations of Bell's inequality, and experiments have confirmed these predictions.
The article is dedicated to the analysis of the ontological status of the hidden parameter λ in the context of Bell's theorem and quantum correlations. In the standard formulation of Bell's inequalities, the hidden parameter is attributed to an individual pair of entangled particles: it is assumed that λ determines the measurement outcomes for each specific pair and, therefore, serves as the carrier of correlation at the level of a single event. This interpretation gives rise to a well-known dilemma: the violation of Bell's inequalities in an experiment is interpreted as evidence of the impossibility of any local realistic theory, leading to conclusions about the non-locality of nature or a rejection of realism. The subject of this study is the very legitimacy of attributing the hidden parameter to an individual pair of particles. The question is posed: is λ a property of a single pair or a characteristic of a statistical ensemble? The problem is considered in the context of the classical philosophical opposition between the singular and the general, as well as the mereological relationship between parts and the whole in relation to the quantum-mechanical description of reality. A conceptual analysis of the mathematical structure of Bell's theorem is employed, along with a comparison of the ontological assumptions of the standard and ensemble interpretations, as well as a philosophical analysis of the levels of realization of correlation. The scientific novelty of the work lies in the explicit formulation of the question regarding the level of ontological belonging of the hidden parameter—a question that is typically not addressed in standard discussions around Bell's theorem. It is shown that attributing λ to an individual pair of particles represents not an experimentally justified fact, but an ontological assumption embedded in the formalism at the stage of its construction. This assumption predetermines the interpretation of the results: the violation of Bell's inequalities is perceived as a collapse of local realism only under the condition that correlation must be realized at the level of a single pair. If the correlation is realized at the level of the ensemble—through the structure of the distribution ρ(λ)—then the violation of Bell's inequalities indicates not non-locality, but the inadequacy of an individual ontology of the hidden parameter. The conclusion is that the standard interpretation of Bell's theorem conflates two ontological levels of description, and a correct delineation of these levels removes the necessity of choosing between non-locality and a rejection of realism.