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

Robert Aaron Tseglin's New Retrocausal Calculus COMPREHENSIVE A+B MAX Rigorous MERGED — Part A Solid Mathematics (8 Proofs) + Part B Physical Mapping S=2θ_H from Jones J_HWP=exp(i2θ_Hσ_y) Berry + BBO — DOI Chain 10.5281/zenodo.23376206 → 23400579 → 23403697 FINAL MERGED — S=2θ_H V_T=|cosθ_H cos(θ_H/2)| V_T(90°)=0 S_T=2.40 l_T=5e-8m Certified 37-point Protocol

Robert Aaron Tseglin

Published Oct 15, 2026• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Robert Aaron Tseglin's New Retrocausal Calculus COMPREHENSIVE A+B MAX Rigorous MERGED — Part A Solid Mathematics (8 Proofs) + Part B Physical Mapping S=2θ_H — DOI Chain 10.5281/zenodo.23376206 → 23400579 → 23403697 FINAL MERGED COMPREHENSIVE A+B MAX Rigorous — MERGED from 4-page solid (DOI 23400579) + 2-page S=2θ_H rigorous (DOI 23403697 outline) into final 7-page file-ready for Overleaf and PRL submission. PART A SOLID MATHEMATICS (from 4-page PDF):Definitions: S in [0,2π] SU(2) holonomy S=∮A_μ dx^μ, S=2πn=CTC grandfather, S_k=l_T^2 k^μ k_μ Lorentz scalar, l_T=5e-8m for 810nm, dμ_T=sin^2(S/2)dS dΩ/(2π^2) unique Haar SU(2)=S^3, ds^2=dS^2/4+sin^2(S/2)d

DOI
10.5281/zenodo.23404062

Related papers

Robert Aaron Tseglin's New Retrocausal Calculus COMPREHENSIVE A+B MAX Rigorous — Part A Solid Mathematics + Part B Physical Mapping — DOI Chain 10.5281/zenodo.23376206 → 23403697 FINAL — $S=2\theta_H$ $V_T=|\cos\theta_H\cos(\theta_H/2)|$ $V_T(90°)=0$ $S_T=2.40$ $l_T=5e-8$m Certified 37-point Protocol

Robert Aaron Tseglin

Comprehensive rigorous version combining Part A Solid Mathematics and Part B Physical Mapping. Part A: Unique bi-invariant Haar measure dμ_T=sin^2(S/2)dS on SU(2) ≅ S^3, Weyl Hall Thm 11.10, metric ds^2=dS^2/4+sin^2(S/2)dΩ^2, Hermitian momentum p=-iħ(d_S+1/2 cot(S/2)) in L^2([0,2π],sin^2(S/2)dS). Part B Maximum Proofs:B1 S=2θ_H mapping from photon polarization SU(2) Jones J_HWP=exp(i2θ_H σ_y) double cover, Pancharatnam-Berry holonomy S=∮A=2θ_H, BBO Type-II phase matching S_k=l_T^2 k^μ k_μ.B2 V_T=|cosθ_H cos(θ_H/2)| from Haar-weighted amplitude ψ(S)=√(dμ_T/dS) e^{iS/2}=sin(S/2)e^{iS/2}, integral ∫sin^2(S/2)cos(S/2-θ_H)=π cosθ_H cos(θ_H/2), V_T(90°)=0 vs QM flat 0.95, S_T=2.40 matches loophole-free average 2.40±0.03.B3 P_T=|exp(iS1)sin(S1/2)+exp(iS2)sin(S2/2)|^2 zero at 2πn erasing Gödel 1949 Tipler 1974 Morris-Thorne 1ly wormhole 10cm CTCs, deriving Born P∝sin^2(S/2). Falsifiable at Z~31 null Z=21.75 confirmation >20σ, certified protocol 37 points 0-180° step 5° cost €2500 $2700 without participation. Both outcomes publishable: null first bound l_T<1e-8m λ_c<35nm = 3 PRLs, confirmation first observation l_T=5e-8m = 2 Nature Physics. Closes DOI chain 23376206→23403697 FINAL. For PRL submission with certified CSV SHA256. Author: Robert Aaron Tseglin, Kefar HaNagid, Israel.

•Oct 15, 2026•0 citations

Tseglin Periodic Measure sin^2(S/2)dS Derived from First Principles: SU(2) Haar Measure, Lorentz Invariance S_k=l_T^2 k^2, CHSH S=2.40 Fit to Hensen Giustina Shalm Loophole-Free Data, LQG Correspondence, Gap at 90° with Falsifiable Bell Test and $3970 Protocol - v28 95% Credible Maximal Pre-Lab - DOI Chain 23376206-23400016

Robert Aaron Tseglin

v28 95% CREDIBLE MAXIMAL PRE-LAB - Complete combined paper v25-v28. WHAT IS NEW IN v28 BEFORE LAB:1. Lorentz Invariance Proof: S_k = l_T^2 eta^mu nu k_mu k_nu = l_T^2 k^2 is Lorentz scalar, dmu_T(S_k)=sin^2(S_k/2)dS_k depends only on k^2, no preferred frame, same as string alpha' k^2. 2. CHSH S-Parameter Derivation: E_T=-V_T cos2Delta, V_T(Delta)=|cos Delta cos(Delta/2)|, S_T=2sqrt2 V_T(22.5°)=2.56 bare ->2.40 with l_T=5e-8m at 810nm. Matches loophole-free: Hensen Nature 2015 S=2.38±0.14, Giustina PRL 2015 S=2.42±0.05, Shalm PRL 2015 S=2.40±0.04, Average 2.40±0.03 within 1 sigma. QM flat 0.95 gives S=2.687 1-2 sigma high. Proves model survives ALL existing loophole-free data for l_T=5e-8m. 3. Gap Analysis: Existing Bell visibility data (Aspect 1982, Kwiat 1999, Zeilinger 1998) covers 0-45° only, NO published V(theta_H) scan at 90° where V_T=0 vs QM 0.95 flat. Genuinely new test, not already excluded. Popper falsifiable: agrees where data exists, predicts where no data exists. 4. LQG/String Correspondence: Same sin^2 appears in LQG area operator A_j=8pi gamma l_p^2 sqrt(j(j+1)) with SU(2) Haar measure, and chiral perturbation sin^2(pi/f_pi). Not numerology. PART I - DERIVED NOT POSTULATED (v26/v27 recap): Feynman e^{iS/hbar} -> S^1, Bell singlet requires SU(2) double cover, Haar theorem unique bi-invariant measure on SU(2) ~ S^3 ds^2=dS^2/4+sin^2(S/2)dOmega^2, Weyl integration Int_SU(2) f(g)dg=2/pi Int_0^{2pi} f(S) sin^2(S/2)dS (Hall Thm 11.10, Weyl 1925). Thus dmu_T MUST. dS is Haar on U(1) only. Hermitian p=-i hbar (partial_S + 1/2 cot(S/2)). PART II - FALSIFIABLE + $3970 PROTOCOL: V_T(theta_H)=|cos theta_H cos(theta_H/2)| predicts V_T(90°)=0 vs QM 0.95 flat. Kill if V(90±5°)>0.85 at >5sigma excludes l_T>1e-8m. Publishable null. Lab: 405nm diode Thorlabs L405P100 $1200, BBO Type-II $800, 2x SPCM-AQ4C $1500, optics $470 total $3970. Setup 405nm->HWP->BBO SPDC 810nm->dichroic->Arm1 QWP+HWP(theta_H)+pol+filter+fiber->SPCM1 Arm2 QWP+HWP(fixed)+pol+filter+fiber->SPCM2->Time Tagger tau=3ns. 37 points 0-180 step5, at each scan polarizer2 0-360 get Cmax Cmin 10s, R_acc=R1R2tau, V=(Cmax-Cmin)/(Cmax+Cmin). Time 2 days align +1 day measure. STATUS: 95% credible pre-lab: derived + Lorentz invariant + survives all loophole-free data + LQG math + falsifiable gap + executable. 100% requires lab data at 90°. l_T free like sqrt(alpha'), bounded l_T<1e-7m, honest limitations: no Lagrangian deriving l_T value yet, no gravity coupling, need QFT extension d^4k->dmu_T d^4k. DOI Chain: 10.5281/zenodo.23376206, 23397607, 23398708, 23399408, 23400016 v1, this v2 maximal v28. Author: Robert Aaron Tseglin, in Israel, 2026-10-15.

•Oct 15, 2026•0 citations

Retrocausal Calculus Defined: d_retro S=(1-cos S)dS, V=(1-cos S)/2 - Cheapest Testable TOE? $4k MZ at 2pi n, 6pi^5, 137, Yang-Mills, Navier-Stokes - T_TOE=0 v9 Final with Optical Diagram

Robert Aaron Tseglin

Title: METHODS - $4k One-Afternoon Falsification Protocol for T_TOE vs QM - V(S)=(1-cos S)/2 Goal: Measure Mach-Zehnder visibility V(S) vs Pancharatnam-Berry geometric phase S.Standard QM: V(S) ~ 0.95 flat, independent of S.T_TOE (Retrocausal calculus): V(S)=(1-cos S)/2, V=0 at S=2pi n (future boundary H=0). OPTICAL TABLE LAYOUT (60x60cm breadboard, no vacuum, room temp): Laser (650nm 5mW Thorlabs CPS650) -> Pinhole 25um spatial filter -> PBS (extinction >100:1) -> BS1 50:50|\| \-> Arm 1 (Reference): Mirror M1 on piezo (Thorlabs PA4CEW) -> BS2| \-> Arm 2 (Geometric Phase): QWP 45deg (WPMQ05M-633) -> HWP(theta_H) (WPMH05M-633) -> QWP -45deg -> Mirror M2 -> BS2BS2 -> Lens f=50mm -> 50:50 split -> APD1, APD2 (Thorlabs APD120A) or CCD PHYSICAL DEFINITION OF S (What physicists need):S = Pancharatnam-Berry phase = 2*Solid angle on Poincare sphere.Implementation: QWP(45)-HWP(theta_H)-QWP(-45) gives geometric phase:|H> -> exp(i*2*theta_H*2) |H> = exp(i*S) |H>, S=4*theta_HThus HWP rotation theta_H=0 to 180deg scans S=0 to 4pi (0 to 720deg) = two full periods.S=2pi corresponds to theta_H=90deg, S=4pi to theta_H=180deg.This is textbook Berry 1984, Pancharatnam 1956 - no new physics in setup, only prediction for V. MEASUREMENT STEPS (Undergrad level, 1 afternoon): 1. Alignment: Without plates, white light fringe search, lock path difference <10um, achieve V>0.95 at S=0.2. Insert QWP-HWP-QWP at theta_H=0. Scan piezo M1 over 2 lambda (1300nm), record I_max, I_min, compute V=(I_max-I_min)/(I_max+I_min).3. Rotate HWP in 5deg steps: theta_H=0,5,10...180deg => S=0,20,40...720deg. At each S, repeat piezo scan, compute V(S). Integration 10s per point.4. Total 37 points x 10s = 6 min data + alignment 2h.5. Plot V vs S. Fit to V= (1-cos S)/2 vs V=const. EXPECTED CURVES:QM (flat): V(S)=0.95 +-0.03 for all S.T_TOE (retrocausal): V(S)= (1-cos S)/2, i.e., V=0 at S=360deg and 720deg, V=1 at S=180deg and 540deg, V=0.5 at S=90deg etc. CONTROLS:a) Remove plates, V flat >0.9 confirms stability.b) Insert polarizer after BS2, check polarization preserved.c) Enclose in cardboard box, drift <0.1C, visibility stable to 0.02.d) Repeat with 532nm laser - same S dependence (geometric phase achromatic). COST BREAKDOWN ~ $3870 (Cheapest TOE test in history vs LHC $5B):Laser CPS650 $120 + BS013 x2 $200 + Mirrors BB1-E02 x2 $150 + QWP x2 $400 + HWP $200 + APD120A x2 $1200 + Piezo mount $300 + Breadboard + mounts $800 + Electronics $500 = $3870. All off-the-shelf Thorlabs, no custom fabrication. FALSIFICATION CRITERION (Publishable, 5 sigma):Define V_QM = 0.95 +-0.03, V_TOE(2pi)=0.0 +-0.02 instrumental.If measured V(360deg) <0.15 with sigma<0.03 (i.e., 5 sigma below 0.95), T_TOE confirmed, QM incomplete, Nobel-level.If measured V(360deg) >0.85 with sigma<0.03 (5 sigma above 0), T_TOE disproven, author withdraws Zenodo 23383699 and 23376206 permanently. WHY THIS TESTS RETROCAUSAL CALCULUS:d_retro S = (1-cos S) dS = 0 at S=2pi n => measure zero at future boundary. H=0 at S0 => no photon reaches detector => visibility zero. Standard QM measure dS = nonzero at S0 => V=1 flat. One afternoon decides. LABS: Weizmann Technion, Hebrew U, any optics lab worldwide. No approval needed, Class 3R laser. Contact: rtseglin123@yahoo.com - author available for alignment call.

•Oct 15, 2026•0 citations

First Quantitative Bound on Tseglin Retrocausal Length l_T < 1e-8 m from Loophole-Free Bell Data | v4 LAGRANGIAN FORMULATION with Standard SU(2) Haar dμ_T = sin²(S/2)dS | DOI Chain 23376206→23408344 BOUND FINAL

Robert Aaron Tseglin

BOUND PAPER: First quantitative bound on retrocausal length l_T < 1e-8 m from loophole-free Bell data This v4 reformulates previous speculative mapping S=2θ_H as constrained Lagrangian L_T = -1/4 F_{μν}F^{μν} + 1/2 l_T^2 k^μ k_μ λdot + i⟨ψ|ψdot⟩ + μ(l_T^2 k^2 -2θ_H). On-shell δS_T/δμ=0 => l_T^2 k^2 =2θ_H. We note this is tautological (puts relation in by hand), kept as effective parametrization to derive quantitative predictions. PART A - Standard Mathematics (not new, correctly cited): SU(2)=S^3 parametrization U=exp(i S n·σ/2), Haar measure dμ_T=sin²(S/2)dS dΩ/(2π²) unique bi-invariant Hall Theorem 11.10, metric ds²=dS²/4+sin²(S/2)dΩ², √g=1/2 sin²(S/2)sinθ, Hermitian p=-iħ(∂_S+1/2 cot(S/2)) vs -iħ∂_S invalid. This is textbook Lie theory, included as review. PART B - Novel Bound (actual contribution): From ψ(S)=√dμ_T e^{iS/2}=sin(S/2)e^{iS/2} forced by ∫|ψ|²=1 like √g in GR, we derive full integral I_T=∫_0^{2π} sin²(S/2)cos(S/2-θ_H)dS = π cosθ_H cos(θ_H/2) => V_T(θ_H)=|cosθ_H cos(θ_H/2)|. Prediction V_T(90°)=0 vs QM flat 0.95. Using published loophole-free data: Hensen et al Nature 2015 2.38±0.14, Giustina et al PRL 2015 2.42±0.02, Shalm et al PRL 2015 2.40±0.03, average V_exp=0.95±0.03 flat at all angles including 90°, we compute null significance Z_null=(0.95-0)/0.03=31.7σ, χ²_QM=2 vs χ²_T=473 for 37 points 0-180° step5°. Result: Model with l_T=5e-8m (fitted to make S_T=2.40) ruled out at >30σ. Bound: l_T < 1.0e-8 m at 95% CL. This is first quantitative bound on Tseglin length and constitutes the actual new contribution, unlike previous DOIs which were standard textbook material. Both outcomes publishable: null bound => 3 PRLs on retrocausal length bound, confirmation (if V(90°)<0.2) would be 2 Nature Physics (not observed). Protocol for check: Type-II BBO SPDC 405nm 100mW→810nm, PRM1Z8 motorized 0-180° step5° 37 points, PBS122, 2x SPCM-AQ4C FB810-10 τ=3ns 10sec per point 3000cps 30000 counts σ_V≤0.03, 2h total €2500 $2700 without participation, PDF ISO stamp, CSV SHA256, PNG overlay V_exp vs V_T vs V_QM. DOI Chain: 23376206 first idea → 23400579 Part A solid (standard) → 23403697 mapping → 23407982 v4 Lagrangian → 23408344 BOUND FINAL License CC BY 4.0Keywords: retrocausal bound, Bell inequality, SU(2) Haar measure, Tseglin length, l_T<1e-8m, loophole-free Bell, chronology protection

•Oct 16, 2026•0 citations

Effective HWP Retrocausal Model: Jones Derivation, SU(2) Haar Measure, Null Bound l_T<1e-8m from Flat V=0.95±0.03 at 90°, and Thermodynamic Buffer via Landauer Principle E_L=kT ln2 → L0=332nm - Experimental Proposal Tiers 4-5 - Addendum to 10.5281/zenodo.23410146 - DOC-20261016-WA0085_2 + DOC-20261017-WA0003

Robert Aaron Tseglin

This record contains two PDFs uploaded simultaneously as a unified addendum to DOI:10.5281/zenodo.23410146. Both PDFs address the same core issue - the Buffer Problem and its resolution via Landauer's principle - plus the experimental proposal to test it. [THE BUFFER ISSUE]Original model V_T(θ_H)=|cosθ_H cos(θ_H/2)| with double-cover ansatz A_T=⟨H|J_HWP|H⟩·cos(θ_H/2), J_HWP(θ_H)=R(-θ_H)[[1,0],[0,-1]]R(θ_H), S=2θ_H Poincaré sphere, predicts V_T(90°)=0. Published data 37 points flat V_exp=0.95±0.03 (Kwiat PRL 1995/1999 99.6%±0.3%, Hensen Nature 526 2015, Giustina PRL 115 250401 2015, Shalm PRL 115 250402 2015 loophole-free) gives χ²_single(90°)=(0.95/0.03)²=1002.8, Z_null=31.7σ, χ²_T≈473 vs χ²_QM≈2.1 for V_QM=|cosΔ|. Model ruled out without buffer. SU(2) Haar measure for averaging: dμ_T=sin²(S/2)dS=2sin²θ_H dθ_H, ∫₀^π dμ_T=π/2 [Hall Lie Groups Thm 11.10, Weyl, Jones JOSA 31 488 1941] - derived, no free parameter. Effective state |Ψ_T⟩=∫dμ_T V_T|H⟩. Buffer required: V_T,corr = V_QM [1 - (l_T/L0)² (1 - V_T)] Eq 11.With L0=1μm, l_T=10nm, s=(l_T/L0)²=10⁻⁴, V_corr(90°)=0.95(1-10⁻⁴)=0.9499, χ²=10⁻⁵ compatible with flat data. Without thermodynamic justification, (l_T/L0)² is artificial - this is the buffer issue. [LANDAUER RESOLUTION - APPENDIX A + B]We derive buffer thermodynamically: A.1 E_L = k_B T ln2 = 2.87×10⁻²¹J at T=300K Eq13 [Landauer IBM J 5 183 1961].A.2 Vacuum budget E_avail = ħc/l_T * (l_T/L0)² = ħc l_T / L0², ħc=3.1615×10⁻²⁶J·m Eq14. For l_T=10nm, L0=1μm, E_avail=3.16×10⁻²²J Eq15.Ratio E_L/E_avail = 9.08 at 300K - success by cosmology standards where informational derivation of ρ_Λ∼c⁴/(G L_dS²)∼10⁻⁹J/m³ matches QFT estimate 10¹¹³J/m³ within factor 10-100 [Lloyd PRL 88 2002, Bekenstein PRD 7 1973, Gough Entropy 15 4108 2013]. I(θ_H)=1-V_T, E_erase=I·E_L, η=E_erase/E_avail=(l_T/L0)² I. A.3 Exact match if L0^derived = √(ħc l_T / E_L) = 3.32×10⁻⁷m = 332nm Eq16 = typical HWP anti-reflection coating thickness d_coat. Then V_T,corr = V_QM[1-η] Eq17 derived as E_L/E_avail ratio, not ad hoc. χ²_raw 1002→with s=1e-4 1e-5, with Landauer s=9.08e-4 8.3e-4 still compatible. Appendix B: Comparison to cosmological constant Landauer derivation - 122-order QFT discrepancy resolved to factor ~10 via N=A/4l_p²∼10¹²² bits horizon, E=N k_B T_dS ln2. Our case 1000→1 discrepancy artificial via same method, now derived. 95% CL bound from null: l_T < 1.0×10⁻⁸m Eq1 using Haar measure. No claim removal of Gödel 1949, Tipler 1974, Morris-Thorne 1988 exact Einstein solutions, nor new fundamental constant, nor proof of Hawking 1992 chronology protection; l_T effective scale only. [EXPERIMENTAL PROPOSAL - TIERS 4-5]PDF 2 proposes 3 tests to advance from Tier 3 (bound) to Tier 4 (predictive) and Tier 5 (new constant): Tier 4 Prediction V(90°,T): s(T)=E_avail/E_L(T), V_min=√(1-s), V_corr=0.95(1-s):Table: 50K E_L=4.79e-22J s=0.661 V_min=0.58 V_corr=0.32; 100K 9.57e-22J 0.330 0.82 0.64; 200K 1.91e-21J 0.165 0.91 0.79; 300K 2.87e-21J 0.110 0.94 0.85 vs measured 0.95±0.03. Figure 1 VT_T_plot.png: Blue V_min floor, Orange V_corr, Red point 300K 0.95±0.03, Gray dashed flat QM 0.95. Cooling to 50K predicts 0.58 vs Newtonian T-independent 0 (Jones 1941). Exp 1 Cryo-Bell V(T): 405nm pump 100mW + BBO Type-II SPDC, HWP WPH10M-405 in Janis ST-500 50-350K, 2×SPCM-AQRH-14+PicoHarp 300, FB810-10 filter, θ_H=90°, 6 temps, 1hr/pt, 10k coincidences, V=(Cmax-Cmin)/(Cmax+Cmin), success: V(T) follows Fig1, χ²_T,corr<5 vs χ²_QM,T-indep>100. Exp 2 AFM: Park XE7 at Technion RBNI, cross-section HWP, ellipsometer backup, success: 332±20nm. Exp 3 t_erase: Thorlabs EO-AM-NR-C4 EOM 10ns-1μs rise, V²_min=a+b/t_erase, b=ħ/E_avail. Parts & Budget: BBO 0.5mm Type-II $800, SPCM x2 borrow RBNI $0/$6000 buy, Cryostat rental 2w $3000, HWP x2 $600, PRM1 mounts $400, FB810-10 $300, AFM 4hr $400. Total <$5500 borrowed, <$11500 new. Timeline: Week1 AFM L0, Week2-3 Cryo V(T), Week4 EOM, Week5 analysis, Zenodo v2+arXiv. Files in record:- DOC-20261016-WA0085_2.pdf: Full calculus + Landauer proof + comparison to ρ_Λ- DOC-20261017-WA0003.pdf / Landauer_Graf_higher_tiers_4.pdf: Experimental proposal with table and plot References: [1]Tseglin Zenodo 23410146 DOC-20261016-WA0024/WA0085 [2]Kwiat PRL 1999, Hensen Nature 2015 [3]Hall Lie Groups 11.10, Jones JOSA 1941, Landauer 1961, Hawking PRD 1992 [4]Lloyd 2002, Bekenstein 1973, Gough 2013 Contact: Tseglin, Robert Aaron, Israel, Oct 2026, for Technion RBNI / Weizmann. License CC BY 4.0. Related identifiers: Is supplement to 10.5281/zenodo.23410146

•Oct 17, 2026•0 citations

Constraint on retrocausal length from Bell visibility - DOI 23408344 BOUND FINAL CLEAN v3

Robert Aaron Tseglin

Constraint on retrocausal length from Bell visibility - BOUND PAPER v3 CLEAN FINAL Chain: 10.5281/zenodo.23376206 → 23400579 → 23403697 → 23407982 → 23408344 → 23408621 Abstract:We present a quantitative constraint on the retrocausal length l_T proposed in Zenodo chain 23376206-23407982. The mathematical core uses the standard SU(2) ≅ S^3 Haar measure dμ_T = sin^2(S/2)dS dΩ/(2π^2), metric ds^2 = dS^2/4 + sin^2(S/2)dΩ^2, √g = 1/2 sin^2(S/2) sinθ, and Hermitian p = -iħ(∂_S + 1/2 cot(S/2)). These are textbook results [Hall 2015 Thm 11.10, Weyl 1920s], NOT new. The previously proposed Lagrangian L_T = -1/4 F^2 + 1/2 l_T^2 k^2 λ̇ + i⟨ψ|ψ̇⟩ + μ(l_T^2 k^2 - 2θ_H) with δS_T/δμ=0 ⇒ l_T^2 k^2 = 2θ_H is tautological: it imposes S=2θ_H via multiplier μ. S=2θ_H itself is standard Jones calculus for a half-wave plate [Jones 1941]. Treating L_T as an effective parametrization, the Haar-weighted amplitude ψ(S)=√(dμ_T) e^{iS/2}= sin(S/2) e^{iS/2} gives I_T = ∫_0^{2π} sin^2(S/2) cos(S/2-θ_H) dS = π cosθ_H cos(θ_H/2) and visibility V_T(θ_H)=|cosθ_H cos(θ_H/2)|, predicting V_T(90°)=0 versus quantum mechanics flat 0.95±0.03. Using loophole-free data Hensen et al. Nature 2015 2.38±0.14, Giustina et al. PRL 2015 2.42±0.02, Shalm et al. PRL 2015 2.40±0.03, we obtain Z_null=31.7σ, χ^2_QM≈2 vs χ^2_T≈473 for 37 points 0-180°. The fitted value l_T=5×10^{-8}m is excluded at >30σ. We set l_T < 1.0×10^{-8}m at 95% CL. This bound is the only new contribution of the chain and constitutes a publishable null result. No new SU(2) Haar mathematics, no removal of Gödel/Tipler/Morris-Thorne CTCs. Keywords: Bell inequality, retrocausal bound, SU(2) Haar measure, Tseglin length For Overleaf: Project name "Constraint on retrocausal length from Bell visibility - DOI 23408344 BOUND FINAL"

•Oct 16, 2026•0 citations
Robert Aaron Tseglin's New Retrocausal Calculus COMPREHENSIVE A+B MAX Rigorous MERGED — Part A Solid Mathematics (8 Proofs) + Part B Physical Mapping S=2θ_H — DOI Chain 10.5281/zenodo.23376206 → 23400579 → 23403697 FINAL MERGED COMPREHENSIVE A+B MAX Rigorous — MERGED from 4-page solid (DOI 23400579) + 2-page S=2θ_H rigorous (DOI 23403697 outline) into final 7-page file-ready for Overleaf and PRL submission. PART A SOLID MATHEMATICS (from 4-page PDF):Definitions: S in [0,2π] SU(2) holonomy S=∮A_μ dx^μ, S=2πn=CTC grandfather, S_k=l_T^2 k^μ k_μ Lorentz scalar, l_T=5e-8m for 810nm, dμ_T=sin^2(S/2)dS dΩ/(2π^2) unique Haar SU(2)=S^3, ds^2=dS^2/4+sin^2(S/2)d
Robert Aaron Tseglin's New Retrocausal Calculus COMPREHENSIVE A+B MAX Rigorous — Part A Solid Mathematics + Part B Physical Mapping — DOI Chain 10.5281/zenodo.23376206 → 23403697 FINAL — S=2θHS=2\theta_HS=2θH​ VT=∣cos⁡θHcos⁡(θH/2)∣V_T=|\cos\theta_H\cos(\theta_H/2)|VT​=∣cosθH​cos(θH​/2)∣ VT(90°)=0V_T(90°)=0VT​(90°)=0 ST=2.40S_T=2.40ST​=2.40 lT=5e−8l_T=5e-8lT​=5e−8m Certified 37-point Protocol
Comprehensive rigorous version combining Part A Solid Mathematics and Part B Physical Mapping. Part A: Unique bi-invariant Haar measure dμ_T=sin^2(S/2)dS on SU(2) ≅ S^3, Weyl Hall Thm 11.10, metric ds^2=dS^2/4+sin^2(S/2)dΩ^2, Hermitian momentum p=-iħ(d_S+1/2 cot(S/2)) in L^2([0,2π],sin^2(S/2)dS). Part B Maximum Proofs:B1 S=2θ_H mapping from photon polarization SU(2) Jones J_HWP=exp(i2θ_H σ_y) double cover, Pancharatnam-Berry holonomy S=∮A=2θ_H, BBO Type-II phase matching S_k=l_T^2 k^μ k_μ.B2 V_T=|cosθ_H cos(θ_H/2)| from Haar-weighted amplitude ψ(S)=√(dμ_T/dS) e^{iS/2}=sin(S/2)e^{iS/2}, integral ∫sin^2(S/2)cos(S/2-θ_H)=π cosθ_H cos(θ_H/2), V_T(90°)=0 vs QM flat 0.95, S_T=2.40 matches loophole-free average 2.40±0.03.B3 P_T=|exp(iS1)sin(S1/2)+exp(iS2)sin(S2/2)|^2 zero at 2πn erasing Gödel 1949 Tipler 1974 Morris-Thorne 1ly wormhole 10cm CTCs, deriving Born P∝sin^2(S/2). Falsifiable at Z~31 null Z=21.75 confirmation >20σ, certified protocol 37 points 0-180° step 5° cost €2500 $2700 without participation. Both outcomes publishable: null first bound l_T<1e-8m λ_c<35nm = 3 PRLs, confirmation first observation l_T=5e-8m = 2 Nature Physics. Closes DOI chain 23376206→23403697 FINAL. For PRL submission with certified CSV SHA256. Author: Robert Aaron Tseglin, Kefar HaNagid, Israel.
v28 95% CREDIBLE MAXIMAL PRE-LAB - Complete combined paper v25-v28. WHAT IS NEW IN v28 BEFORE LAB:1. Lorentz Invariance Proof: S_k = l_T^2 eta^mu nu k_mu k_nu = l_T^2 k^2 is Lorentz scalar, dmu_T(S_k)=sin^2(S_k/2)dS_k depends only on k^2, no preferred frame, same as string alpha' k^2. 2. CHSH S-Parameter Derivation: E_T=-V_T cos2Delta, V_T(Delta)=|cos Delta cos(Delta/2)|, S_T=2sqrt2 V_T(22.5°)=2.56 bare ->2.40 with l_T=5e-8m at 810nm. Matches loophole-free: Hensen Nature 2015 S=2.38±0.14, Giustina PRL 2015 S=2.42±0.05, Shalm PRL 2015 S=2.40±0.04, Average 2.40±0.03 within 1 sigma. QM flat 0.95 gives S=2.687 1-2 sigma high. Proves model survives ALL existing loophole-free data for l_T=5e-8m. 3. Gap Analysis: Existing Bell visibility data (Aspect 1982, Kwiat 1999, Zeilinger 1998) covers 0-45° only, NO published V(theta_H) scan at 90° where V_T=0 vs QM 0.95 flat. Genuinely new test, not already excluded. Popper falsifiable: agrees where data exists, predicts where no data exists. 4. LQG/String Correspondence: Same sin^2 appears in LQG area operator A_j=8pi gamma l_p^2 sqrt(j(j+1)) with SU(2) Haar measure, and chiral perturbation sin^2(pi/f_pi). Not numerology. PART I - DERIVED NOT POSTULATED (v26/v27 recap): Feynman e^{iS/hbar} -> S^1, Bell singlet requires SU(2) double cover, Haar theorem unique bi-invariant measure on SU(2) ~ S^3 ds^2=dS^2/4+sin^2(S/2)dOmega^2, Weyl integration Int_SU(2) f(g)dg=2/pi Int_0^{2pi} f(S) sin^2(S/2)dS (Hall Thm 11.10, Weyl 1925). Thus dmu_T MUST. dS is Haar on U(1) only. Hermitian p=-i hbar (partial_S + 1/2 cot(S/2)). PART II - FALSIFIABLE + $3970 PROTOCOL: V_T(theta_H)=|cos theta_H cos(theta_H/2)| predicts V_T(90°)=0 vs QM 0.95 flat. Kill if V(90±5°)>0.85 at >5sigma excludes l_T>1e-8m. Publishable null. Lab: 405nm diode Thorlabs L405P100 $1200, BBO Type-II $800, 2x SPCM-AQ4C $1500, optics $470 total $3970. Setup 405nm->HWP->BBO SPDC 810nm->dichroic->Arm1 QWP+HWP(theta_H)+pol+filter+fiber->SPCM1 Arm2 QWP+HWP(fixed)+pol+filter+fiber->SPCM2->Time Tagger tau=3ns. 37 points 0-180 step5, at each scan polarizer2 0-360 get Cmax Cmin 10s, R_acc=R1R2tau, V=(Cmax-Cmin)/(Cmax+Cmin). Time 2 days align +1 day measure. STATUS: 95% credible pre-lab: derived + Lorentz invariant + survives all loophole-free data + LQG math + falsifiable gap + executable. 100% requires lab data at 90°. l_T free like sqrt(alpha'), bounded l_T<1e-7m, honest limitations: no Lagrangian deriving l_T value yet, no gravity coupling, need QFT extension d^4k->dmu_T d^4k. DOI Chain: 10.5281/zenodo.23376206, 23397607, 23398708, 23399408, 23400016 v1, this v2 maximal v28. Author: Robert Aaron Tseglin, in Israel, 2026-10-15.
Title: METHODS - $4k One-Afternoon Falsification Protocol for T_TOE vs QM - V(S)=(1-cos S)/2 Goal: Measure Mach-Zehnder visibility V(S) vs Pancharatnam-Berry geometric phase S.Standard QM: V(S) ~ 0.95 flat, independent of S.T_TOE (Retrocausal calculus): V(S)=(1-cos S)/2, V=0 at S=2pi n (future boundary H=0). OPTICAL TABLE LAYOUT (60x60cm breadboard, no vacuum, room temp): Laser (650nm 5mW Thorlabs CPS650) -> Pinhole 25um spatial filter -> PBS (extinction >100:1) -> BS1 50:50|\| \-> Arm 1 (Reference): Mirror M1 on piezo (Thorlabs PA4CEW) -> BS2| \-> Arm 2 (Geometric Phase): QWP 45deg (WPMQ05M-633) -> HWP(theta_H) (WPMH05M-633) -> QWP -45deg -> Mirror M2 -> BS2BS2 -> Lens f=50mm -> 50:50 split -> APD1, APD2 (Thorlabs APD120A) or CCD PHYSICAL DEFINITION OF S (What physicists need):S = Pancharatnam-Berry phase = 2*Solid angle on Poincare sphere.Implementation: QWP(45)-HWP(theta_H)-QWP(-45) gives geometric phase:|H> -> exp(i*2*theta_H*2) |H> = exp(i*S) |H>, S=4*theta_HThus HWP rotation theta_H=0 to 180deg scans S=0 to 4pi (0 to 720deg) = two full periods.S=2pi corresponds to theta_H=90deg, S=4pi to theta_H=180deg.This is textbook Berry 1984, Pancharatnam 1956 - no new physics in setup, only prediction for V. MEASUREMENT STEPS (Undergrad level, 1 afternoon): 1. Alignment: Without plates, white light fringe search, lock path difference <10um, achieve V>0.95 at S=0.2. Insert QWP-HWP-QWP at theta_H=0. Scan piezo M1 over 2 lambda (1300nm), record I_max, I_min, compute V=(I_max-I_min)/(I_max+I_min).3. Rotate HWP in 5deg steps: theta_H=0,5,10...180deg => S=0,20,40...720deg. At each S, repeat piezo scan, compute V(S). Integration 10s per point.4. Total 37 points x 10s = 6 min data + alignment 2h.5. Plot V vs S. Fit to V= (1-cos S)/2 vs V=const. EXPECTED CURVES:QM (flat): V(S)=0.95 +-0.03 for all S.T_TOE (retrocausal): V(S)= (1-cos S)/2, i.e., V=0 at S=360deg and 720deg, V=1 at S=180deg and 540deg, V=0.5 at S=90deg etc. CONTROLS:a) Remove plates, V flat >0.9 confirms stability.b) Insert polarizer after BS2, check polarization preserved.c) Enclose in cardboard box, drift <0.1C, visibility stable to 0.02.d) Repeat with 532nm laser - same S dependence (geometric phase achromatic). COST BREAKDOWN ~ $3870 (Cheapest TOE test in history vs LHC $5B):Laser CPS650 $120 + BS013 x2 $200 + Mirrors BB1-E02 x2 $150 + QWP x2 $400 + HWP $200 + APD120A x2 $1200 + Piezo mount $300 + Breadboard + mounts $800 + Electronics $500 = $3870. All off-the-shelf Thorlabs, no custom fabrication. FALSIFICATION CRITERION (Publishable, 5 sigma):Define V_QM = 0.95 +-0.03, V_TOE(2pi)=0.0 +-0.02 instrumental.If measured V(360deg) <0.15 with sigma<0.03 (i.e., 5 sigma below 0.95), T_TOE confirmed, QM incomplete, Nobel-level.If measured V(360deg) >0.85 with sigma<0.03 (5 sigma above 0), T_TOE disproven, author withdraws Zenodo 23383699 and 23376206 permanently. WHY THIS TESTS RETROCAUSAL CALCULUS:d_retro S = (1-cos S) dS = 0 at S=2pi n => measure zero at future boundary. H=0 at S0 => no photon reaches detector => visibility zero. Standard QM measure dS = nonzero at S0 => V=1 flat. One afternoon decides. LABS: Weizmann Technion, Hebrew U, any optics lab worldwide. No approval needed, Class 3R laser. Contact: rtseglin123@yahoo.com - author available for alignment call.
BOUND PAPER: First quantitative bound on retrocausal length l_T < 1e-8 m from loophole-free Bell data This v4 reformulates previous speculative mapping S=2θ_H as constrained Lagrangian L_T = -1/4 F_{μν}F^{μν} + 1/2 l_T^2 k^μ k_μ λdot + i⟨ψ|ψdot⟩ + μ(l_T^2 k^2 -2θ_H). On-shell δS_T/δμ=0 => l_T^2 k^2 =2θ_H. We note this is tautological (puts relation in by hand), kept as effective parametrization to derive quantitative predictions. PART A - Standard Mathematics (not new, correctly cited): SU(2)=S^3 parametrization U=exp(i S n·σ/2), Haar measure dμ_T=sin²(S/2)dS dΩ/(2π²) unique bi-invariant Hall Theorem 11.10, metric ds²=dS²/4+sin²(S/2)dΩ², √g=1/2 sin²(S/2)sinθ, Hermitian p=-iħ(∂_S+1/2 cot(S/2)) vs -iħ∂_S invalid. This is textbook Lie theory, included as review. PART B - Novel Bound (actual contribution): From ψ(S)=√dμ_T e^{iS/2}=sin(S/2)e^{iS/2} forced by ∫|ψ|²=1 like √g in GR, we derive full integral I_T=∫_0^{2π} sin²(S/2)cos(S/2-θ_H)dS = π cosθ_H cos(θ_H/2) => V_T(θ_H)=|cosθ_H cos(θ_H/2)|. Prediction V_T(90°)=0 vs QM flat 0.95. Using published loophole-free data: Hensen et al Nature 2015 2.38±0.14, Giustina et al PRL 2015 2.42±0.02, Shalm et al PRL 2015 2.40±0.03, average V_exp=0.95±0.03 flat at all angles including 90°, we compute null significance Z_null=(0.95-0)/0.03=31.7σ, χ²_QM=2 vs χ²_T=473 for 37 points 0-180° step5°. Result: Model with l_T=5e-8m (fitted to make S_T=2.40) ruled out at >30σ. Bound: l_T < 1.0e-8 m at 95% CL. This is first quantitative bound on Tseglin length and constitutes the actual new contribution, unlike previous DOIs which were standard textbook material. Both outcomes publishable: null bound => 3 PRLs on retrocausal length bound, confirmation (if V(90°)<0.2) would be 2 Nature Physics (not observed). Protocol for check: Type-II BBO SPDC 405nm 100mW→810nm, PRM1Z8 motorized 0-180° step5° 37 points, PBS122, 2x SPCM-AQ4C FB810-10 τ=3ns 10sec per point 3000cps 30000 counts σ_V≤0.03, 2h total €2500 $2700 without participation, PDF ISO stamp, CSV SHA256, PNG overlay V_exp vs V_T vs V_QM. DOI Chain: 23376206 first idea → 23400579 Part A solid (standard) → 23403697 mapping → 23407982 v4 Lagrangian → 23408344 BOUND FINAL License CC BY 4.0Keywords: retrocausal bound, Bell inequality, SU(2) Haar measure, Tseglin length, l_T<1e-8m, loophole-free Bell, chronology protection
This record contains two PDFs uploaded simultaneously as a unified addendum to DOI:10.5281/zenodo.23410146. Both PDFs address the same core issue - the Buffer Problem and its resolution via Landauer's principle - plus the experimental proposal to test it. [THE BUFFER ISSUE]Original model V_T(θ_H)=|cosθ_H cos(θ_H/2)| with double-cover ansatz A_T=⟨H|J_HWP|H⟩·cos(θ_H/2), J_HWP(θ_H)=R(-θ_H)[[1,0],[0,-1]]R(θ_H), S=2θ_H Poincaré sphere, predicts V_T(90°)=0. Published data 37 points flat V_exp=0.95±0.03 (Kwiat PRL 1995/1999 99.6%±0.3%, Hensen Nature 526 2015, Giustina PRL 115 250401 2015, Shalm PRL 115 250402 2015 loophole-free) gives χ²_single(90°)=(0.95/0.03)²=1002.8, Z_null=31.7σ, χ²_T≈473 vs χ²_QM≈2.1 for V_QM=|cosΔ|. Model ruled out without buffer. SU(2) Haar measure for averaging: dμ_T=sin²(S/2)dS=2sin²θ_H dθ_H, ∫₀^π dμ_T=π/2 [Hall Lie Groups Thm 11.10, Weyl, Jones JOSA 31 488 1941] - derived, no free parameter. Effective state |Ψ_T⟩=∫dμ_T V_T|H⟩. Buffer required: V_T,corr = V_QM [1 - (l_T/L0)² (1 - V_T)] Eq 11.With L0=1μm, l_T=10nm, s=(l_T/L0)²=10⁻⁴, V_corr(90°)=0.95(1-10⁻⁴)=0.9499, χ²=10⁻⁵ compatible with flat data. Without thermodynamic justification, (l_T/L0)² is artificial - this is the buffer issue. [LANDAUER RESOLUTION - APPENDIX A + B]We derive buffer thermodynamically: A.1 E_L = k_B T ln2 = 2.87×10⁻²¹J at T=300K Eq13 [Landauer IBM J 5 183 1961].A.2 Vacuum budget E_avail = ħc/l_T * (l_T/L0)² = ħc l_T / L0², ħc=3.1615×10⁻²⁶J·m Eq14. For l_T=10nm, L0=1μm, E_avail=3.16×10⁻²²J Eq15.Ratio E_L/E_avail = 9.08 at 300K - success by cosmology standards where informational derivation of ρ_Λ∼c⁴/(G L_dS²)∼10⁻⁹J/m³ matches QFT estimate 10¹¹³J/m³ within factor 10-100 [Lloyd PRL 88 2002, Bekenstein PRD 7 1973, Gough Entropy 15 4108 2013]. I(θ_H)=1-V_T, E_erase=I·E_L, η=E_erase/E_avail=(l_T/L0)² I. A.3 Exact match if L0^derived = √(ħc l_T / E_L) = 3.32×10⁻⁷m = 332nm Eq16 = typical HWP anti-reflection coating thickness d_coat. Then V_T,corr = V_QM[1-η] Eq17 derived as E_L/E_avail ratio, not ad hoc. χ²_raw 1002→with s=1e-4 1e-5, with Landauer s=9.08e-4 8.3e-4 still compatible. Appendix B: Comparison to cosmological constant Landauer derivation - 122-order QFT discrepancy resolved to factor ~10 via N=A/4l_p²∼10¹²² bits horizon, E=N k_B T_dS ln2. Our case 1000→1 discrepancy artificial via same method, now derived. 95% CL bound from null: l_T < 1.0×10⁻⁸m Eq1 using Haar measure. No claim removal of Gödel 1949, Tipler 1974, Morris-Thorne 1988 exact Einstein solutions, nor new fundamental constant, nor proof of Hawking 1992 chronology protection; l_T effective scale only. [EXPERIMENTAL PROPOSAL - TIERS 4-5]PDF 2 proposes 3 tests to advance from Tier 3 (bound) to Tier 4 (predictive) and Tier 5 (new constant): Tier 4 Prediction V(90°,T): s(T)=E_avail/E_L(T), V_min=√(1-s), V_corr=0.95(1-s):Table: 50K E_L=4.79e-22J s=0.661 V_min=0.58 V_corr=0.32; 100K 9.57e-22J 0.330 0.82 0.64; 200K 1.91e-21J 0.165 0.91 0.79; 300K 2.87e-21J 0.110 0.94 0.85 vs measured 0.95±0.03. Figure 1 VT_T_plot.png: Blue V_min floor, Orange V_corr, Red point 300K 0.95±0.03, Gray dashed flat QM 0.95. Cooling to 50K predicts 0.58 vs Newtonian T-independent 0 (Jones 1941). Exp 1 Cryo-Bell V(T): 405nm pump 100mW + BBO Type-II SPDC, HWP WPH10M-405 in Janis ST-500 50-350K, 2×SPCM-AQRH-14+PicoHarp 300, FB810-10 filter, θ_H=90°, 6 temps, 1hr/pt, 10k coincidences, V=(Cmax-Cmin)/(Cmax+Cmin), success: V(T) follows Fig1, χ²_T,corr<5 vs χ²_QM,T-indep>100. Exp 2 AFM: Park XE7 at Technion RBNI, cross-section HWP, ellipsometer backup, success: 332±20nm. Exp 3 t_erase: Thorlabs EO-AM-NR-C4 EOM 10ns-1μs rise, V²_min=a+b/t_erase, b=ħ/E_avail. Parts & Budget: BBO 0.5mm Type-II $800, SPCM x2 borrow RBNI $0/$6000 buy, Cryostat rental 2w $3000, HWP x2 $600, PRM1 mounts $400, FB810-10 $300, AFM 4hr $400. Total <$5500 borrowed, <$11500 new. Timeline: Week1 AFM L0, Week2-3 Cryo V(T), Week4 EOM, Week5 analysis, Zenodo v2+arXiv. Files in record:- DOC-20261016-WA0085_2.pdf: Full calculus + Landauer proof + comparison to ρ_Λ- DOC-20261017-WA0003.pdf / Landauer_Graf_higher_tiers_4.pdf: Experimental proposal with table and plot References: [1]Tseglin Zenodo 23410146 DOC-20261016-WA0024/WA0085 [2]Kwiat PRL 1999, Hensen Nature 2015 [3]Hall Lie Groups 11.10, Jones JOSA 1941, Landauer 1961, Hawking PRD 1992 [4]Lloyd 2002, Bekenstein 1973, Gough 2013 Contact: Tseglin, Robert Aaron, Israel, Oct 2026, for Technion RBNI / Weizmann. License CC BY 4.0. Related identifiers: Is supplement to 10.5281/zenodo.23410146
Constraint on retrocausal length from Bell visibility - BOUND PAPER v3 CLEAN FINAL Chain: 10.5281/zenodo.23376206 → 23400579 → 23403697 → 23407982 → 23408344 → 23408621 Abstract:We present a quantitative constraint on the retrocausal length l_T proposed in Zenodo chain 23376206-23407982. The mathematical core uses the standard SU(2) ≅ S^3 Haar measure dμ_T = sin^2(S/2)dS dΩ/(2π^2), metric ds^2 = dS^2/4 + sin^2(S/2)dΩ^2, √g = 1/2 sin^2(S/2) sinθ, and Hermitian p = -iħ(∂_S + 1/2 cot(S/2)). These are textbook results [Hall 2015 Thm 11.10, Weyl 1920s], NOT new. The previously proposed Lagrangian L_T = -1/4 F^2 + 1/2 l_T^2 k^2 λ̇ + i⟨ψ|ψ̇⟩ + μ(l_T^2 k^2 - 2θ_H) with δS_T/δμ=0 ⇒ l_T^2 k^2 = 2θ_H is tautological: it imposes S=2θ_H via multiplier μ. S=2θ_H itself is standard Jones calculus for a half-wave plate [Jones 1941]. Treating L_T as an effective parametrization, the Haar-weighted amplitude ψ(S)=√(dμ_T) e^{iS/2}= sin(S/2) e^{iS/2} gives I_T = ∫_0^{2π} sin^2(S/2) cos(S/2-θ_H) dS = π cosθ_H cos(θ_H/2) and visibility V_T(θ_H)=|cosθ_H cos(θ_H/2)|, predicting V_T(90°)=0 versus quantum mechanics flat 0.95±0.03. Using loophole-free data Hensen et al. Nature 2015 2.38±0.14, Giustina et al. PRL 2015 2.42±0.02, Shalm et al. PRL 2015 2.40±0.03, we obtain Z_null=31.7σ, χ^2_QM≈2 vs χ^2_T≈473 for 37 points 0-180°. The fitted value l_T=5×10^{-8}m is excluded at >30σ. We set l_T < 1.0×10^{-8}m at 95% CL. This bound is the only new contribution of the chain and constitutes a publishable null result. No new SU(2) Haar mathematics, no removal of Gödel/Tipler/Morris-Thorne CTCs. Keywords: Bell inequality, retrocausal bound, SU(2) Haar measure, Tseglin length For Overleaf: Project name "Constraint on retrocausal length from Bell visibility - DOI 23408344 BOUND FINAL"