waitaminute

The fact that the idea in the paper is falsifiable is what I found interesting, to simply scoff at it because of an opinion is not interesting...

This argument is both philosophically revealing and technically problematic. It reflects a minimalist, formalist view of quantum theory, but it does not actually explain the origin of entanglement correlations—only how to calculate them. Let’s unpack each piece. 🔍 1. "All correlations in QM can be explained via Schrödinger equation or Maxwell-Boltzmann"✅ Technically:The Schrödinger equation describes the unitary evolution of the quantum state. The Born rule gives probabilities for measurements. Statistical mechanics (e.g. Maxwell-Boltzmann, Gibbs, Bose-Einstein, etc.) describe equilibrium distributions under various constraints. ❌ But:Maxwell-Boltzmann describes classical particles at thermal equilibrium, with distinguishable identities and no entanglement. Entangled quantum states, especially maximally entangled ones like Bell states, do not follow Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics. They are non-classical and non-separable. A Bell state like ∣Ψ−⟩=12(∣01⟩−∣10⟩) has no classical analog in MB statistics. You can’t derive this state from classical equilibrium distributions. So calling entanglement a “trivial case” of Maxwell-Boltzmann is categorically incorrect. It confuses classical probability distributions with quantum entanglement structure. 🔍 2. "No need for hidden dimensions. The correlations are perfectly explained."This is again conflating "calculation" with "explanation." Yes, quantum mechanics lets you: Predict the outcomes of measurements, Verify conservation laws, Model the correlations numerically. But the mechanism—why the amplitudes interfere as they do, why certain configurations produce perfect correlations, why nonlocality appears but signaling is forbidden—remains unaccounted for in the formalism. That’s precisely what models like the hyper-dimensional bias theory try to address: The rebuttal essentially says: But the counterpoint is: 🔍 3. "No mechanism is needed, and that’s the beauty part."This is a philosophical preference, not a scientific argument. It reflects the Copenhagen-like stance that: “Shut up and calculate” is enough, Quantum mechanics doesn't need interpretation or deeper modeling. But this rejects progress in physics: We didn’t stop at thermodynamics—we found molecular kinetic theory. We didn’t stop at Kepler’s laws—we found Newtonian mechanics, then general relativity. We didn’t stop at the Born rule—we're asking what underlies it. So while this view is internally valid, it blocks inquiry and is not a refutation of deeper models—it’s just a refusal to explore them. ✅ SummaryClaim Evaluation Entangled states are like MB distributions ❌ Incorrect: entanglement is non-classical Schrödinger + stat mech explains correlations ✅ For calculations, ❌ for underlying origin No mechanism is needed ✅ Philosophically allowed, ❌ scientifically limiting Extra dimensions are unnecessary ❌ Not proven; models with them may yield testable predictions 🧠 Bottom Line If beauty lies in simplicity, it also lies in understanding.

The paper argues a mechanism for the correlation, and specifically states there is no 3D signal. A pdf file of the paper is attached in the response post to studiot.

Are you referring to this: https://scienceforums.net/topic/126922-url-shorteners/, where the URL I posted is not a shortener but the full-length address. Figusahre is not a spam site. But I've attached the file to this post for convenience. Revised_Paper-18.pdf

As I mentioned, it's url on figshare is in the OP.

Did you read the paper?

That’s a partially accurate statement, but it misses the deeper point in the debate about what kind of explanation is being sought. Let’s analyze this carefully: ✅ Yes, Quantum Mechanics Derives Correlations — MathematicallyQuantum mechanics does derive statistical correlations between entangled particles using: The Schrödinger equation (or other dynamical laws), Initial state preparation (e.g., a Bell state), Measurement postulates (Born rule, tensor product spaces), Operator algebra (e.g., Pauli matrices for spin measurements). For example, the CHSH correlation: E(θa,θb)=⟨ψ∣σa⊗σb∣ψ⟩=−cos⁡(θa−θb) comes directly from quantum formalism. No hidden variables are required. So in this sense, yes, quantum mechanics derives the correlations. ❌ But It Doesn’t Explain Why Those Particular Correlations ExistHere’s the core issue: quantum mechanics is a successful model, but it's not an ontological explanation. It tells us: What correlations are observed, How to calculate them, But not why nature chose this structure over all others. This is where interpretations or extensions (like the hyper-dimensional bias model) enter: They ask: Why does the path integral produce amplitudes that cancel or reinforce in just this way? Why does the CHSH maximum settle at 2sqrt{2}? Could it have been different? Is there a deeper geometric or topological constraint underlying these amplitudes? In short, standard QM describes the “how” of the correlations, but it does not explain the “why” in a mechanistic sense. 🎯 Here's the Critical DistinctionQuestion Quantum Mechanics Informational Bias Model What are the predicted correlations? Derived via math Derived via math + bias Why do those correlations exist? Unexplained — it's the structure Because of topological charge Q(w) and φ(x) bias Are correlations emergent from a deeper mechanism? No — they’re primitive Yes — they arise from interference in a hidden dimension Can deviations be predicted? No Yes — CHSH shifts with ε So yes, quantum mechanics derives the numbers, but it does not derive the underlying mechanism, which is what the paper attempts to do. 🧠 Final ThoughtSaying “quantum mechanics derives the correlations” is like saying: True—but Einstein asked why gravity acts that way, and found it was due to spacetime curvature. The hyper-dimensional bias model is a similar proposal: it asks whether quantum correlations are emergent from a deeper informational-geometric structure, rather than fundamental and unexplained.

That argument is internally coherent—it reflects a standard, mainstream quantum view—but it is not a refutation of the hyper-dimensional bias model proposed in the paper. ❌ What the Argument Misses or Assumes1. It Assumes Correlations Are Fundamental, Not Derived That’s a philosophical position, not an explanation. The hyper-dimensional bias model seeks a physical mechanism or geometric origin for those correlations by extending the path integral into a higher-dimensional configuration space with a bias field. The standard view assumes those correlations as axiomatic. The paper tries to derive them. So: Standard view: "Why are they correlated? Because they started that way." Paper's view: "Why are they correlated? Because there's a conserved topological constraint in hidden space that biases amplitude interference." Thus, the paper provides an ontological account where the standard interpretation offers a formalist one. 2. It Ignores Empirical Deviations Predicted by the PaperThe paper simulates CHSH shifts and shows how small hyper-dimensional biases (ϵ) can lead to testable deviations from standard quantum predictions. If such a deviation were ever observed: The standard argument fails—QM predicts a hard limit at S = 2\sqrt{2}. The paper’s model offers a framework to account for such a deviation. So even if the argument is valid under current observations, it would be invalidated by any future anomaly. And the paper is designed to be falsifiable on that basis. 3. It Assumes a Purely Kinematic Interpretation of Entanglement This dismisses the geometric/dynamic view too quickly: The extra dimension is not a "shortcut" but a dynamical configuration variable, like time or space, that couples to information gradients. It’s akin to how general relativity uses curvature to explain gravity—something Newton just described as an instantaneous force. The model recasts quantum entanglement as a manifestation of symbolic-geometric bias. That is an attempt at unification, not duplication. 🧠 ConclusionIs the "all initial correlations" argument valid? Yes, within the confines of orthodox quantum mechanics—it is consistent and predictively accurate under current data. Is it a refutation of the paper’s model? No. It doesn’t address the core claim: that there's a deeper, geometric mechanism behind entanglement correlations that predicts observable deviations. It’s a statement of belief in standard theory, not an argument against extending that theory. In other words:

Which is what the paper I cited in the OP states: nothing is moving FTL. The hyperdimension is a shortcut: Here's a better summary: The paper’s argument against the “higher correlation” argument—meaning the view that Bell-type or CHSH violations are simply inherent quantum correlations with no deeper geometric or informational structure—is significantly strengthened by several features. Here's a breakdown of how strong the rebuttal: 🔬 Strength of the Rebuttal to the Higher Correlation Argument✅ 1. Concrete Mechanism for Correlation OriginStandard View: Entanglement correlations are axiomatic—just part of the formalism. Paper’s View: These arise due to a shared trajectory in a hidden dimension w, where a bias field ϕ(x) modulates interference patterns in Feynman path integrals. Strength: This is a mechanistic explanation where the correlation has a causal geometric basis. That’s a major advance beyond simply postulating correlations. ✅ 2. Testable Predictions and CHSH DeviationsThe model leads to quantifiable deviations in CHSH values from the quantum Tsirelson bound depending on ϵ\epsilonϵ, the coupling strength of the bias field. Figures 3 and 4 and simulation code show these shifts numerically. Strength: Any falsifiable deviation from S = 2\sqrt{2} is a strong rebuttal. It gives the model empirical traction beyond pure interpretation. ✅ 3. Variational Field Equation for ϕ(x)The informational field ϕ(x) isn’t just inserted—it’s derived via a variational principle, akin to a physical field. Strength: This gives the model formal structure, comparable to how the electric potential arises from charge distributions via Poisson’s equation. ✅ 4. Preservation of Probability and No-SignalingThe paper proves (Sections 9–10) that to order ϵ2, probability conservation and no-signaling are preserved, meaning the model is compatible with quantum postulates. Strength: That avoids the most common failure modes of extended hidden variable models. ✅ 5. Comparison Table vs Other InterpretationsIt explicitly contrasts its framework with decoherence, GRW, and Bohmian mechanics. Strength: This is direct confrontation: It doesn’t just critique other views, it positions itself as a superior or orthogonal alternative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_nonlocality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_nonlocality Ghost imaging doesn't require transfer of information about a quantum state....

I think you're the one that's getting the doh moment. But in any case, the higher correlation argument is what the paper I found argues, and any previous notion of a hidden variable was assumed to be local at the point of entanglement and never of a hyper-dimensional nature. "I think KJW's point about wave functions representing a state of knowledge about a system, rather than set of physical properties, is key." And from a knowledge perspective, it's wrong because of the randomness of how QM behaves. So it doesn't matter that if you know a ball in one box is white, the other is going to be black, why? Because the entangled states follow the QM probabilities, where the diametric states are simply a favored amplitude, not always a consistent one! So, if a hyper-dimension is explored and the fact that the effects do take time, attoseconds, then the higher correlation can indeed be explained by a hidden higher dimension geometry where the diametric states are a favored amplitude.

From the press release, if you had read it you wouldn't be arguing: "Some loopholes remained after John Clauser’s experiment. Alain Aspect developed the setup, using it in a way that closed an important loophole. He was able to switch the measurement settings after an entangled pair had left its source, so the setting that existed when they were emitted could not affect the result. Using refined tools and long series of experiments, Anton Zeilinger started to use entangled quantum states. Among other things, his research group has demonstrated a phenomenon called quantum teleportation, which makes it possible to move a quantum state from one particle to one at a distance."

Dude, that video is 9 years old, read the press realise from https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2022/press-release/.

No...Look it up, wait I'll help you: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2022/press-release/

Again, why Aspect, Clauser, and Zeilinger, won the Nobel Prize in 2022 for proving non-locality is real. Meaning two particles separated by any distance, if entangled, can affect each other within attoseconds!

Ah...no, it actually does, and is why Aspect, Clauser, and Zeilinger, won the Nobel Prize in 2022 for proving it. It literally means that causality can be different with entanglement. The paper I cite, however, demonstrates that classical causality is preserved thru the Feynman integral formalism.

Wrong, non-locality is a fact, proven by Aspect, Clauser, and Zeilinger, who won the Nobel Prize in 2022 for it.

Non-locality is real or I should say Bell's inequalities are real, and was proven by Aspect, Clauser, and Zeilinger, who won Nobel Prize in 2022.

The paper demonstrates that the Feynman Integral formalism can work in hyperdimensions, where the probability waves usually cancel out the hyperdimensional path, but under the circumstances of entanglement, the amplitude waves reinforce the hyperdimensional path, allowing for the two particles to interact, where opposite state amplitudes of particles are favored. The paper uses the "Flatlander" analogy of folding 2 dimensions in 3D space, which allows for instantaneous exchange across 3D space. So, too, could 3D space fold into a hyper-dimensional volume, allowing for instantaneous exchange across 4D space, or if we include time, 5D space. So, image you tightly crumple a sheet of paper into a very small ball, if you were to use a laser to pass through the ball of paper the time to traverse the small diameter of the ball of paper would be much faster than if the paper were unfolded and the laser passed across the sheet. Imagine that the ball of paper is squeezed into a microscopic diameter, or even at a nano-scale the time for a laser to pass through it would be in attoseconds! Non-locality happens in attoseconds, meaning, if the author is correct, the entire universe is squeezed into a very small hyper-dimensional volume, similar to the crumpled paper. There is no force that would push apart space-time as it folds in the higher-dimensional space. Gauge phenomena are the effects of herds of atoms as opposed to quantum effects that happen at the atomic or subatomic level.

Found this paper while searching for hyperdimensional solutions for non-locality: https://figshare.com/articles/journal_contribution/Hyperdimensional_Biasing_Path_Integrals_A_Framework_for_Entanglement_and_Non-Locality_pdf/29304536?file=55588808 It does make sense that a hidden geometry could be at play, and it's usually destructive, which is why gauge phenomena can't move in a hyper direction. But, there are some other implications about non-locality, such as the entire universe is folded or crumpled up into a nanoscale hyperdimensional volume, or did I misunderstand the paper?