Preprint Article Version 3 Preserved in Portico This version is not peer-reviewed

Non-Local EPR Correlations using Quaternion Spin

Version 1 : Received: 16 January 2023 / Approved: 31 January 2023 / Online: 31 January 2023 (04:19:48 CET)
Version 2 : Received: 3 February 2023 / Approved: 6 February 2023 / Online: 6 February 2023 (02:04:35 CET)
Version 3 : Received: 31 March 2023 / Approved: 3 April 2023 / Online: 3 April 2023 (04:12:41 CEST)
Version 4 : Received: 3 April 2023 / Approved: 4 April 2023 / Online: 4 April 2023 (03:54:28 CEST)
Version 5 : Received: 29 July 2023 / Approved: 31 July 2023 / Online: 1 August 2023 (10:03:11 CEST)
Version 6 : Received: 17 October 2023 / Approved: 18 October 2023 / Online: 18 October 2023 (10:08:48 CEST)
Version 7 : Received: 26 January 2024 / Approved: 28 January 2024 / Online: 29 January 2024 (04:18:41 CET)

How to cite: Sanctuary, B. Non-Local EPR Correlations using Quaternion Spin. Preprints 2023, 2023010570. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202301.0570.v3 Sanctuary, B. Non-Local EPR Correlations using Quaternion Spin. Preprints 2023, 2023010570. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202301.0570.v3

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 $\frac{1}{2}$, 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, $Q_8$, 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.

Keywords

Foundations of physics; Dirac equation; Spin; Quantum Theory; non-locality; helicity

Subject

Physical Sciences, Quantum Science and Technology

Comments (2)

Comment 1
Received: 3 April 2023
Commenter: Bryan Sanctuary
Commenter's Conflict of Interests: Author
Comment: I have extensively rewritten the paper and changed the title in response to discussions on forums.
+ Respond to this comment
Comment 2
Received: 6 April 2023
Commenter: (Click to see Publons profile: )
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: According to the abstract of this paper, "a statistical simulation is presented which reproduces the correlation obtained from EPR coincidence experiments without non-local connectivity". This statement is false. At the end of the paper, formula (32) is presented, which states that the correlation obtained is a mixture of correlations obtained in two "sub-models". But both of these two submodels define correlations which satisfy the Bell-CHSH inequalities, and hence so does their probabilistic mixture.

The author seems to be rather confused about Bell's theorem. On the first page of this paper, he writes "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”. His “local variable” is the classical variable which he has introduced in order to explain the correlations predicted by quantum mechanics. That is exactly the definition of a "hidden variable" in this context. Everybody in the whole world working in the foundations of quantum mechanics will call it a “hidden variable”. Bell, Bohr and Einstein would all call it a hidden variable. LHV theories all start by “finding” such a hidden variable. Sanctuary says that he has found the hidden variable and says it is even a variable which people talked about in the 20’s. Numerous local hidden variables theories have been proposed in the past (none of them successful) with the same hidden variable (a direction of spin or of polarization).

Sanctuary's model is a local hidden variables model in Bell’s sense because he introduces functions A and B, and a variable lambda having some probability distribution rho which does not depend on the experimenters settings a and b, such that the experimentally observed outcomes are x = A(a, lambda), y = B(b, lambda). Such a model is always called a *local* hidden variables model because the function A is a function of lambda and of setting a, but not of setting b; the function B is a function of lambda and of setting b, not of setting a. Whether or not the variable “lambda” is associated with some location, some part of the experiment, is irrelevant. The adjective “local” in the expression “local hidden variables model” refers to the functions A and B, not to the variable lambda. Bell said this explicitly many times.

More precisely, Sanctuary's model would be a local hidden variables model in Bell’s sense if the observed outcomes x, y were elements of the set {-1, +1}. The standard quantum mechanical predictions for the EPR-B model give not only mean values and correlations but also the possible values of the outcomes. The experimental correlation of his formula (32) is a probability mixture of two correlation functions both of which satisfy Bell-CHSH inequalities since he has a local hidden variables theory for “p” detections and another local hidden variables theory for “c” detections. The paper does not contain a graph of E_exp(a, b). It is not equal to the famous EPR-B correlation.

If one would imagine each particle pair having two attributes, namely a polarisation angle lambda together with the identity “p - type” or “c - type”, and the detectors not distinguishing which type the incoming particles are but just registering the +/-1 outcome of the relevant one of his two “sub-models", then formula (32) would represent the experimentally observed correlation function. As said before, it does not violate CHSH inequalities and it is not equal to the EPR-B correlation, so this model does not “explain” QM predictions and it does not explain actual experimental results obtained to date.
+ Respond to this comment

We encourage comments and feedback from a broad range of readers. See criteria for comments and our Diversity statement.

Leave a public comment
Send a private comment to the author(s)
* All users must log in before leaving a comment
Views 0
Downloads 0
Comments 2
Metrics 0


×
Alerts
Notify me about updates to this article or when a peer-reviewed version is published.
We use cookies on our website to ensure you get the best experience.
Read more about our cookies here.