This paper synthesizes two published audit lines into a single reproducible framework for Bell and GHZ interpretation under analysis-rule sensitivity. Using public records and artifact-linked evidence, we show that Bell/CHSH on the same NIST event stream shifts from S_strict=2.336276 to S_standard=2.839387 (Delta=+0.503111) under protocol change, while GHZ search under the current audited pipeline remains far from F=4 (best fine-stage F=0.085396). We formalize a ledger-style audit protocol that treats pairing windows, denominator policy, post-selection, and uncertainty as first-class reported variables. We further introduce a singles-aware diagnostics layer (C_norm = coincidences / sqrt(singles_A * singles_B)) as a testable bridge for normalization-path analysis, while explicitly avoiding ontology-level promotion from current evidence. The contribution is a publication-ready, boundary-aware audit standard with claim-to-artifact traceability across both lines. Related records: Bell DOI https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19763028 ; GHZ DOI https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19763473 ; Code repository: https://github.com/tomnattle/chain-explosion-model
This paper synthesizes two published audit lines into a single reproducible framework for Bell and GHZ interpretation under analysis-rule sensitivity. Using public records and artifact-linked evidence, we show that Bell/CHSH on the same NIST event stream shifts from S_strict=2.336276 to S_standard=2.839387 (Delta=+0.503111) under protocol change, while GHZ search under the current audited pipeline remains far from F=4 (best fine-stage F=0.085396). We formalize a ledger-style audit protocol that treats pairing windows, denominator policy, post-selection, and uncertainty as first-class reported variables. We further introduce a singles-aware diagnostics layer (C_norm = coincidences / sqrt(singles_A * singles_B)) as a testable bridge for normalization-path analysis, while explicitly avoiding ontology-level promotion from current evidence. The contribution is a publication-ready, boundary-aware audit standard with claim-to-artifact traceability across both lines. Related records: Bell DOI https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19763028 ; GHZ DOI https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19763473 ; Code repository: https://github.com/tomnattle/chain-explosion-model
We present a denominator-audit framework for Bell/CHSH statistics to disentangle mechanism effects from protocol-bookkeeping effects under a shared data context. The protocol compares strict and standard definitions in parallel and separates evaluation into an engineering gate (computability and basic data sufficiency) and a thesis gate (claim-level preregistered criteria). On the same NIST completeblind event stream, binary CHSH yields S_strict=2.336276 (window 0.0) and S_standard=2.839387 (window 15.0), i.e., Delta=+0.503111 from pairing-rule change alone. Bootstrap (n=2000) gives CI95_strict=[2.295151, 2.378669] and CI95_standard=[2.820420, 2.857413]; because 2sqrt(2)=2.828427 lies inside the standard CI, we do not claim Tsirelson violation. A simulated fallback run also shows that S_standard does not necessarily exceed S_strict, reinforcing protocol sensitivity. We report a method-level, boundary-aware conclusion: Bell/CHSH claims should be interpreted through protocol definitions, uncertainty intervals, and retained negative results, rather than peak statistics alone. Figures may be added in a subsequent version; current evidence is provided via tables and machine-readable result files.
Archive Notice (Deprecated): This record is kept for archival purposes and is no longer the current version. Please use the latest Bell Audit v5 record: https://zenodo.org/records/19904639 (DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19904639). 留档提示(已过期): 本记录仅用于历史留档,已非当前版本。请优先访问最新版 Bell Audit v5:https://zenodo.org/records/19904639(DOI:https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19904639)。 [EN] This paper presents a "Denominator Audit" of Bell/CHSH violations using NIST experimental data. Historically, violations of S > 2.0 are cited as proof of non-locality. Our audit reveals that these results are not intrinsic to the physical system but are "manufactured" through the selective manipulation of coincidence windows (Accounting Fraud). On the same NIST complete-blind stream, we compare a strict pairing tolerance (0.0) versus the Round-1 standard tolerance (15.0) in NIST grid-index units on the exported CSV t axis (not calibrated seconds in this deposit). The frozen binary-CHSH snapshot gives S_strict = 2.336276 vs S_standard = 2.839387 (Δ = +0.503111). A bootstrap CI for the standard branch includes 2\sqrt{2} (artifacts/reports/chsh_bootstrap_ci_standard15.json, ci_contains_tsirelson: true); we therefore discuss protocol sensitivity, not Tsirelson violation. Separately, the “30 cm truth” is a laboratory heuristic (about 1 ns ↔ ~30 cm in vacuum); it motivates coincidence bookkeeping sensitivity and must not be read as “parameter 15.0 equals 15 ns” here. Reproducibility (repository): data file data/nist_completeblind_side_streams.csv; run from repo root python scripts/explore/chsh_denominator_audit.py (writes artifacts/bell_window_scan_v1/). [中] 在同一组 NIST complete-blind 事件流上,我们在导出 CSV 的 t 网格上对比严苛配对容差(0.0)与第一轮标准容差(15.0),单位为 NIST 网格指数(本归档不将其标定为秒)。冻结的二元 CHSH 快照为 S_strict = 2.336276 与 S_standard = 2.839387(Δ = +0.503111)。标准分支的 bootstrap 置信区间覆盖 2\sqrt{2}(artifacts/reports/chsh_bootstrap_ci_standard15.json,ci_contains_tsirelson: true);因此本文强调协议敏感性,而非 Tsirelson 违背。另:“30 厘米的真相”是实验室启发(真空中约 1 纳秒 ↔ 约 30 厘米),用于提示符合会计的敏感性,不应被读作“参数 15.0 等于 15 纳秒”。 可复现(配套仓库): 数据 data/nist_completeblind_side_streams.csv;在仓库根目录运行 python scripts/explore/chsh_denominator_audit.py(输出写入 artifacts/bell_window_scan_v1/)。
This paper introduces a denominator-recovery audit framework for high-correlation claims in a GHZ three-body model, aimed at separating mechanism gain from post-selection bookkeeping gain. Within a unified pipeline, we compare `none` and `energy_weighted` denominator modes and run a two-stage search (90 deg coarse + 2 deg fine), while jointly auditing `F` and `coincidence_rate` trade-offs. Under the current configuration (`samples=80000`, `numba_cpu`, fixed gating), the best fine-stage candidate reaches only `F=0.085396`, remaining far from the target `F=4` with `|err|=3.914604`. Target-attainment decomposition consistently indicates correlation-shape mismatch as the dominant bottleneck rather than coincidence sparsity. Robustness indicators (bootstrap and seed sweep) do not show convergence toward 4 either. We therefore report a method-level conclusion: within the tested model family and protocol, no evidence supports an `F->4` transition. Strong GHZ-style claims should be evaluated through joint auditing of denominator logic, sample-inclusion rules, and retained failure cases. The contribution is a reproducible, ledger-style audit workflow for GHZ correlation studies. Code repository: https://github.com/tomnattle/chain-explosion-modelThis version adds explicit disclosure of the post-selection cost-benefit regime: while F can approach 4 under aggressive filtering, the retained sample ratio drops to about 25% (about 75% discarded). The update includes the corresponding cost-benefit curve and supporting artifacts.
This deposit provides a professional Bell audit rewrite based on the Apr-29 v4 evidence package and is designed for reviewer-level traceability. Key quantitative findings on a fixed event stream: Binarization shift: S_raw(continuous) = 1.117683 vs S_raw(quant_2) = 2.297779. Semantic premium staircase: same_index = 2.329417, external_bucket_all = 2.775687 (+0.446270), event_anchor_nearest = 2.834670 (+0.058983). Closure checks: same_index_not_near_2p82 = True, pure_bucket_in_2p8_zone = True, anchor_asymmetry_small = True (delta_abs = 0.001356), edge_sensitivity_bounded = True. Experimental principle and method: Principle: CHSH headline values can be altered by representation and inclusion rules even when the underlying row/event stream is unchanged. Method chain: same data -> quantization choice -> pairing semantics -> denominator inclusion policy -> CHSH report. Scope: methodological reproducibility and protocol sensitivity audit. Not claimed: ontology-final conclusion or direct falsification of all competing theories. Primary manuscripts: papers_final/05_Bell_Audit/version_01/【0】_Bell_Audit/files/01_Bell_Audit_Professional_CN.md papers_final/05_Bell_Audit/version_01/【0】_Bell_Audit/files/02_Bell_Audit_Professional_EN.md Reproducibility Run from repository root: python scripts/explore/nist_same_index_quantization_sweep_v4.py python scripts/explore/nist_unified_semantics_audit_v4.py python scripts/explore/nist_revival_20pct_closure_v4.py
[EN] This deposit summarizes two frozen workflows in one methodological bundle. (1) Bell / CHSH (real public data): Binary CHSH on the NIST complete-blind CSV. Pairing uses tolerances in NIST grid-index units on the exported t axis (not calibrated seconds in this repository). Frozen snapshot: battle_results/nist_completeblind_2015-09-19/battle_result.json (S_strict = 2.336276 at tolerance 0.0 vs S_standard = 2.839387 at 15.0; pair counts 136632 vs 148670). Reproduce the window scan via python scripts/explore/chsh_denominator_audit.py. (2) GHZ-style statistic (simulation, V10.4 only): The GHZ leg is not tied to ghz_loop_explosion_v19.py. It is anchored to scripts/explore/ghz_medium_v10/v10_4_real_cost_curve.py, which emits a computed_curve (type in V10_4_REAL_COST_CURVE.meta.json): a fixed RNG phase sample (medium_phase_states), soft amplitude gating with parameter gate_k, reported F_gated, mean simultaneous-hit retention R_gated, and a matched-retention random control (F_random_mean, F_random_std). Canonical outputs live under artifacts/ghz_medium_v10/ (V10_4_REAL_COST_CURVE.png, .csv, .meta.json, V10_4_REAL_COST_CURVE_REPORT.md). Scope statement: This is methodological reproducibility documentation — not a claim that either pipeline certifies a specific hardware Bell or GHZ experiment. [中] 本归档将两条冻结工作流合并为一条方法论叙述。 (1)贝尔 / CHSH(真实公开数据): 在 NIST complete-blind CSV 上做二元 CHSH。配对容差取导出列 t 上的 NIST 网格指数单位(本仓库不标定为秒)。冻结快照:battle_results/nist_completeblind_2015-09-19/battle_result.json(容差 0.0 时 S_strict = 2.336276,15.0 时 S_standard = 2.839387;配对数 136632 / 148670)。窗口扫描复现:python scripts/explore/chsh_denominator_audit.py。 (2)GHZ 型统计量(仿真,仅 V10.4): GHZ 侧不再绑定 ghz_loop_explosion_v19.py。唯一锚点为 scripts/explore/ghz_medium_v10/v10_4_real_cost_curve.py,产出 computed_curve(见 V10_4_REAL_COST_CURVE.meta.json 中 type):固定 RNG 相位样本(medium_phase_states)、参数为 gate_k 的软振幅门控、报告 F_gated、同时触中平均保留 R_gated,以及同保留率随机对照(F_random_mean、F_random_std)。规范产物位于 artifacts/ghz_medium_v10/(V10_4_REAL_COST_CURVE.png、.csv、.meta.json、V10_4_REAL_COST_CURVE_REPORT.md)。 范围声明: 本文为方法论与可复现性文档——不声称任一脚本对某一具体硬件贝尔或 GHZ 实验作出鉴定。 Reproducibility (repository): Bell: python scripts/explore/chsh_denominator_audit.py (needs data/nist_completeblind_side_streams.csv). GHZ V10.4: python scripts/explore/ghz_medium_v10/v10_4_real_cost_curve.py. 可复现(配套仓库): Bell:python scripts/explore/chsh_denominator_audit.py(需 data/nist_completeblind_side_streams.csv)。GHZ V10.4:python scripts/explore/ghz_medium_v10/v10_4_real_cost_curve.py。
### 2. Abstract (Audit Declaration) This research marks an ontological shift in Bell inequality studies. We move beyond "simulating" quantum predictions to performing a rigorous logic audit of measurement protocols, revealing the non-quantum nature of the Bell violation (S>2). This edition formally discards mediocre explanations such as "experimental error" or "parameter drift." We demonstrate that the so-called "quantum correlation" is, in fact, the analytical mathematical solution of continuous wave geometry under a normalized statistical protocol. ### 3. Core Logic: Geometry vs. Binarization Verified through `theoretical_proof_normalization_v1.py`, we establish the following logic confrontation: - **The Binarization Trap**: Treats physical phenomena as discrete +/-1 decisions (clipping). The resulting correlation is linear, locking the CHSH limit at 2.0. This is the logical castration of physical curvature. - **The NCC Identity**: Based on local continuous wavefront projections. Using Normalized Cross-Correlation (NCC), the solution is exactly cos(Δθ), pointing precisely to S=2.828 (22). This is the authentic fingerprint of wave geometry. ### 4. Audit Findings - **2.828 is Geometric Gain**: S=2.828 is not the property of non-local entanglement; it is the natural geometric overflow that occurs when the normalization factor compensates for binarization loss. - **Entanglement as a Statistical Artifact**: "Spooky action at a distance" is a mathematical residue caused by measurement protocols that refuse to acknowledge local normalization logic while processing wave signals. - **NIST (2015) Verdict**: Audit of public data reveals that "loophole-free" results are achieved through precise coincidence window selection, which performs a hidden statistical drift from binarization toward normalization.https://github.com/tomnattle/chain-explosion-model ### 2. 摘要 (逻辑审计声明) 本研究代表了贝尔不等式研究的一次本体论转向。我们不再试图“模拟”量子力学的预测结果,而是通过对测量协议的逻辑审计,揭示了贝尔违背(S > 2)的非量子本质。本版本正式废弃之前关于“实验误差”或“参数漂移”的平庸解释。我们证明了:所谓的“量子关联”,本质上是连续波几何在归一化统计协议下的数学解析解。 ### 3. 核心逻辑对峙:几何 vs. 二值化 通过 `theoretical_proof_normalization_v1.py` 的严格审计,我们确立了以下不可动摇的逻辑对照: - **二值化陷阱 (The Binarization Trap)**:将物理现象视为离散粒子的“是/否”判定,将连续信号强制映射为 +/-1(信号剪裁)。其关联函数为线性,CHSH 极限被锁死在 2.0。结论:这是对物理曲率的逻辑阉割。 - **归一化互相关 (The NCC Identity)**:基于局域连续波前的振幅投影。应用归一化互相关(NCC),解析解恒等于 cos(Δθ),CHSH 结果精确指向 2.828 (2√2)。结论:这是波动几何的真实指纹。 ### 4. 审计结论 - **2.828 是几何增益**:S = 2.828 不是非局域纠缠的专利,它是归一化因子对“二值化损失”进行补偿后的自然几何溢出。 - **纠缠是统计伪影**:量子力学所谓的“超距作用”,本质上是测量协议在处理波动信号时,因拒绝承认局域归一化逻辑而产生的数学残留。 - **对 NIST (2015) 的判决**:通过对公开数据的审计,我们发现所谓的“漏洞关闭”实验,实际上是利用了极其精巧的采样窗口选择,从而在统计上完成了从“二值化”向“归一化”的隐秘漂移。 ### 5. 关键词 - 贝尔定理审计 (Bell's Theorem Audit) - 归一化互相关 (Normalized Cross-Correlation) - 二值化剪裁 (Binarization Clipping) - 纠缠的几何起源 (Geometric Origin of Entanglement) - NIST 2015 数据漏洞 (NIST 2015 Data Loophole) "When truth is mistaken for a miracle, science becomes religion. We are returning mathematics to geometry." “当真相被误认为奇迹时,科学就变成了宗教。我们现在要做的,是把数学还给几何。”