Category: Quantum Entanglement

Anton Lorenz Vrba
Independent Researcher, UK
vrba@iow.onl

Richard D. Gill
Mathematical Institute, Leiden University
gill@math.leidenuniv.nl

29 September 2026

Abstract

We examine the logical and mathematical structure of Sanctuary’s recent paper (Quantum Rep. 2026, 8, 96), which argues that spin observables in the Bivector Standard Model (BiSM) are not jointly definable on a single Kolmogorov probability space, so that the CHSH quadruple cannot be formed and Bell’s and Fine’s theorems do not apply. The paper contains two constructions: local response functions of the analyser setting and a shared source phase, and a separate prescription that produces the correlation . We show that the first construction, as specified, meets the hypotheses of Bell’s theorem. Its outcome maps are defined on a common source domain with a setting-independent distribution, so the non-existence claim (Lemma 3, Corollary 3) does not hold for it, its product correlations obey the CHSH bound, and the paper’s own simulation of it yields the Bell triangle. The cosine is obtained instead from a scalar computed jointly from both stations’ phases and then digitised; it is not shown to be the correlation of the local outcomes. Execution of the supplementary programs further shows that the four BiSM_v2 populations do not form the partition stated in the paper, and that the doubled-angle harmonic attributed to the raw coherence data appears only after a sign convention is applied on the second half-cycle.

Introduction

Sanctuary’s paper “Spin Helicity and the Disproof of Bell’s Theorem” [3], together with [2], claimed that a bivector (quaternion) model of spin disproves Bell’s theorem. The published Comment [4] examined that claim. It concluded that the construction lies outside the hypotheses of Bell’s theorem rather than refuting it, and that the correlation is obtained by steps that “are heuristic mathematical procedures, not formal probabilistic identities”. In particular, the Comment identified the assembly of the correlation from separately computed polarisation and coherence contributions as “a modeling postulate”, for which “no general probabilistic theorem guarantees that such an additive assembly reproduces Bell-type statistics”.

In his Reply [5] the author accepted the first conclusion: “We agree that Bell’s theorem is mathematically valid within its stated assumptions. Our position is that bivector spin does not belong to the class of models Bell considered and therefore lies outside the scope of the theorem.” The Reply also defends the contextual construction of measurement domains, the statistical reconstruction of the phase relation, and a geometric account of the quantum limit. It offers no explicit probabilistic derivation resolving the objection to the split-and-recombine step, stating that “several issues raised by Vrba, particularly concerning the quantum limit and measurement structure, deserve fuller treatment than is possible in a short reply.”

Paper [1] develops that response. It does not supply the missing probabilistic derivation. Instead it isolates joint definability as a separate premise, which the model is said to fail, and it gives explicit rules: a phase uniformly distributed on , carried by local rotors to each station, and deterministic outcome rules. The present critique concerns the relation between the paper’s algebra and detector-level statistics. The explicit rules of [1] allow a sharper separation than was possible in [4] between two constructions: the local response functions, and the separate prescription that produces . The review that follows examines whether the joint-definability argument holds for the local responses (Section A), whether the correlation is derived from them or assembled separately (Section B), what the simulations compute (Section C), and which further claims rest on assertion rather than derivation (Sections D and E).

Unless stated otherwise, equation, section, definition and lemma numbers refer to [1]; the points of the present critique are numbered A1, B1, and so on. The supplementary material of [1] contains the programs BiSM_v1 and BiSM_v2 with their output files. Statements about the programs below rest on source inspection and output files.

A. The joint-definability argument

A1. Lemma 3 does not hold for the paper’s own definitions. Definition 12 introduces a context map , and Eq. (52) defines the outcome as . The composition is a function on for every setting , and likewise . Hence for every the four values

are simultaneously defined, and is a common domain of the kind Lemma 3 says does not exist. The proof of Lemma 3, whose argument is first set out in [5], rests on the sentence “observables are defined only after contextual instantiation”. That concerns which experiment is physically performed, not which functions are mathematically defined. Counterfactual definability in Bell’s sense requires only that the function be specified, not that the measurement be made.

A2. The explicit outcome rules are Bell-type local functions. The paper does not leave the outcome functions abstract. Eq. (15) gives the local phase for every and ; Eqs. (64) and (66) take the quantum-domain outcome as ; and Eq. (85) gives the polarisation outcome as , with the value assigned at zero. Each is a function of the local setting and the shared alone, which is Bell’s form . The sign-of-cosine rule is essentially Bell’s own illustrative model [6]; with a uniform source distribution and Bob’s opposite sign it gives the linear “triangle” correlation, as Figure 3 and Section 4.2.2 of [1] confirm.

A3. Geometric reality does not exempt from Bell’s framework. The paper states: “In the BiSM long–range EPR correlation originates from a common relative rotor phase established at separation and subsequently carried along the worldlines of Alice and Bob” (Section 2.1); the same description is given in [5]. Bell placed no restriction on the nature of : “It is a matter of indifference in the following whether denotes a single variable or a set, or even a set of functions, and whether the variables are discrete or continuous” [6]. A real, local geometric object created at the source and carried to both stations is the paradigm case of , not an exception to it. The local-response component of the model is therefore of exactly the kind Bell’s theorem addresses, and the statement that the bivector is “not a hidden variable in Bell’s sense” [5] does not hold for that component.

A4. A single Kolmogorov space is used explicitly. The paper places on with density (Eqs. (16), (70)) and uses this same space for every analyser separation: “Every segment in the simulation has the same free–flight singlet state”. The supplementary programs use a common finite grid of values for all settings, which is likewise a single space. With measurable response maps, the pushforward of under is a joint distribution reproducing the pairwise distributions of these local responses. Corollary 3 (“no global joint probability distribution exists for the CHSH quadruple”) therefore does not hold for them. The pushforward need not reproduce the separately generated pair distributions of the cosine branch (Section C).

A5. The author’s statement of Fine’s theorem, applied to the local responses. Section 5.5 states correctly that a joint distribution for the four observables “is equivalent to a deterministic Local Hidden Variable (LHV) representation”. Definition 15 asserts: “Individual measurement outcomes are real, discrete, deterministic and local.” The label alone would not settle the matter, but points A1, A2 and A4 show that the paper supplies local response functions on a common source domain and a source distribution that does not depend on the settings. For correlations formed as averages of products of these local outcomes,

for every , and integration against gives the CHSH bound; by the equivalence the author quotes, a joint distribution exists. The paper does not address the resulting alternatives:

1. either the reported correlations are averages of products of these local outcomes, in which case CHSH is satisfied;
2. or they are obtained from another quantity, in which case the locality of the response functions does not carry over to them.

The simulations (Section C) show that alternative (ii) is what occurs.

A6. Assumption 3 is not independent of Assumption 2 in the paper’s representation. The paper lists “Joint Definability” separately from “Outcome Definiteness”. Assumption 2 (“For each hidden parameter , the outcomes , are well-defined”) is stated for the settings generally; in the functional representation the paper supplies, any four settings then yield four defined values for fixed . Rejecting 3 while retaining 2 requires restricting 2 to the setting actually used, a restriction the paper does not state.

A7. The scope of Fine’s theorem. Fine’s theorem [7] concerns the scenario with two settings per party and two outcomes per setting: pairwise distributions with consistent single-observable marginals admit a joint distribution if and only if the full family of Bell–CHSH inequalities holds. A family that violates those inequalities is an instance of the theorem’s conclusion, not a case in which the theorem does not apply. Conclusion 5 of [1] states that “Bell’s theorem and Fine’s characterization remain mathematically valid within their stated premises”, which is narrower than the “inapplicability” of the title.

A8. Notation and analogy do not alter the common domain. The semicolon in is said to indicate “that is not merely another argument”; the notation does not change the domain or existence of the function. The proof of Lemma 2 moves from distinct function values, , to “distinct domains”; that step is not justified. Distinct instantiated domains need not be denied: the decisive point is that the context maps pull the observables back to the common source domain (A1). The induced-dipole analogy (Remark 1) illustrates this: a polarisability tensor fixes the response to every field direction simultaneously, so the counterfactual dipoles are jointly defined.

A9. The common-domain structure is already present in Bell’s representation. The paper states that “Bell did not isolate this common probability–space structure as a separate premise under the name of joint definability; it entered tacitly through the hidden–variable representation”. Bell wrote , and explicitly [6]. Joint definability is a consequence of that representation rather than an additional assumption, which is why it required no separate statement.

B. The correlation derivation

B1. The cosine is the scalar part of a joint product. Of the ellipsis in Eq. (13) the paper states: “We added the dots to emphasize that the two rotors do not cancel but are carried as independent phases by the separated EPR pair. The dots have no mathematical meaning expressing only locality by the product.” Eq. (14) nevertheless evaluates as the scalar part of the product of Alice’s and Bob’s rotors, in which cancels and results. The paper’s own second line of Eq. (14) shows the alternative: the product of the separate scalar parts, , which it states “obeys the CHSH bound”. The cosine is thus obtained from the scalar part of a product formed from both stations’ rotors, not from the product of the two locally generated Boolean detector outcomes. Joint processing is not itself the issue: ordinary coincidence analysis also compares records at a common later stage. The issue is which function of the records is computed.

B2. The cosine holds event by event. Eq. (20) gives the relative phase for every , so the scalar of Eq. (71) equals for every pair. Section 4.2.2 states that the correlation “emerges only statistically from the ensemble of rotor phases ”. The source phase affects the individual local quantities, but averaging over it is not what produces the cosine in : that cosine already holds event by event. The required identification of this scalar with the correlation of local Boolean outcomes is not supplied by the cancellation.

B3. The singlet operator is the identity. Eqs. (9), (13) and (72) define . Eq. (73) then writes

Inserting the identity between and yields directly. The target correlation thus enters through this algebraic representation, and no argument is given that the representation describes the detector statistics. Eq. (73) also combines matrix transposition with geometric-algebra products and uses , both as angles and as vectors; a clarification of the representation would help.

B4. The plotted mustache is a residual. Eq. (71) is the trigonometric addition identity,

The legend of Figure 3 reads verbatim “Mustache = Quaternion – Bell”, and the caption calls the mustache “Their difference”. The plotted mustache is therefore the residual between the target and the triangle; it is neither the continuous coherence term of Eq. (71) nor an independently derived contribution to a detector correlation. The cosine itself enters through the identity applied to the jointly held phases (B1, C1). The Comment [4] had described the corresponding split-and-recombine step as “a modeling postulate”.

B5. The split-and-recombine step is not connected to detector statistics. The Comment [4] identified the assembly of the correlation as a sum of separately computed polarisation and coherence contributions, , as “a modeling postulate” for which “no general probabilistic theorem guarantees that such an additive assembly reproduces Bell-type statistics”. Neither the Reply [5] nor [1] supplies the missing connection. The operators do not appear in [1], and how they relate to the continuous terms of Eq. (71) and to the populations of Section 4.3 is not stated. In [1] the recombination appears as Eq. (71), , with the two terms described as “complementary projections of a single underlying quaternion rotor” (Section 4.1). The algebraic sum is well defined and follows from the chosen rotor product. What is not established is its identification with the product of the recorded local Boolean outcomes, or with that product’s expectation. Describing and as complementary sectors does not supply this measurement relation, and the subsequent digitisation (C2) samples a new coincidence variable with mean rather than showing that the local detector products have that mean.

B6. The term “polarisation” is used for three different quantities. The term is used for: (Eq. (14), second line), which is not rotation-invariant; (Eq. (71)), which averages over to ; and the digitised triangle (Figure 3, Section 4.3). Moreover, Section 4.3.3 states that “The symmetric combination Equation (71) reconstructs the scalar invariant and produces the piecewise linear correlation”, whereas Section 4.2 states that the same equation yields . These two statements contradict each other.

B7. The Boolean benchmark is one member of the Bell-local class. The second line of Eq. (14) is said to follow “from Equation (11) by dropping the off–diagonal terms in the scalar product, ”, which “represents complete removal of the bivector phase structure”. The paper does not say which physical operation this prescription represents, or how it relates to the detector rule it specifies. The resulting product, , is then used as the Boolean benchmark that obeys CHSH. It is one example of a Bell-local correlation. Bell’s theorem, however, concerns the whole class of local response functions under a common preparation, so a comparison with this single product does not establish how the model stands in relation to that class.

B8. The rotor scalar is not shown to be a detector expectation. For a binary coincidence variable , and normalisation give , so Eq. (22) is a legitimate identity once the rotor scalar is known to be such an expectation (with the paper’s convention ). That identification is the step not supplied. The accompanying statement (“Since they are constructed from a product state of two independently propagating local rotors their use is consistent with locality”) asserts the locality of the construction rather than showing it.

C. The simulations

C1. The abstract’s description of BiSM_v1 differs from its construction. The abstract states: “Numerical simulations reproduce this correlation using only local detector events.” Section 4.2 states of : “It is not a local detector click and is never used to generate either Alice’s or Bob’s local Boolean outcome”, and Section 4.2.2 adds: “The scalar is not Bell’s response function .” is computed from both stations’ continuous phases together (Eq. (71)). The quoted statement holds for the local clicks of the Bell control, but the per-station outcomes of the cosine branch are generated from (C3).

C2. The digitisation step reproduces any prescribed mean. Eqs. (74)–(75) set whenever , with one auxiliary uniform random number per pair. Then

exactly, for any function with values in . Any correlation function with is “reproduced” in this way, including one whose four-setting CHSH combination exceeds the Tsirelson bound . The procedure samples a prescribed mean; it is not a test of whether that mean has a Bell-local realisation. The source of BiSM_v1 states that “No Malus probability P_eq=(1+R)/2 is formed or used anywhere in event generation”; the uniform threshold is nonetheless mathematically identical to sampling with that probability. The reported maximum error of (Eq. (78)) verifies the trigonometric identity in floating point.

C3. In the cosine branch the station outcomes are assigned after pairing. The paper describes the digitisation of into the coincidence variable (Eqs. (74)–(76)), but not how outcomes for Alice and Bob are then obtained. The source of BiSM_v1 shows this step: after is drawn, a further random number assigns an equal event to or , and an unequal event to or (“The equal pair is ++ or – with equal marginal weight”). The station-resolved counts in the output file are generated in this way. Alice’s recorded outcome in this branch is therefore not a function of her setting and : whether it agrees with Bob’s is decided by , a function of both settings. The marginals remain uniform, but the joint law is not of Bell’s form ; the program’s own Bell control, which is of that form, gives the triangle. Since identically (Eq. (20)), the retained phases carry exactly the difference of the two settings. Any experiment that records its analyser settings, as all Bell tests do, could generate the same coincidence data by this procedure.

C4. The paper’s local-outcome analysis is consistent with Bell’s theorem. Section 4.2.2 states that analysing the local records gives “the conventional Bell result of the piecewise–linear correlation”; executing BiSM_v1 confirms this, its Bell control giving at and at . Eqs. (80)–(81) present the two computations as analyses of “the same experimental results”. Both use the same enlarged simulated record, but they apply different functions to it, and the cosine branch also generates additional random pair labels. The enlarged record contains continuous phases and “retained local rotor geometry” (Eqs. (67)–(68)), and the paper does not establish that these are accessible detector records. The statement that “The same digitized coincidence statistics observed experimentally are thereby recovered” therefore compares a simulation using additional, jointly processed quantities with experiments that record only outcomes.

C5. The BiSM_v2 rules are not derived, and Eq. (88) does not describe the program. Several event rules are given without derivation from the bivector dynamics: the phase offsets in Eq. (84), which the program describes as implementing singlet preparation by antipodal source orientations; the factor in Eq. (85); and the “larger signed contribution” rule of Eqs. (86)–(87). Eq. (88) states that “Each event contributes to one of the four populations”, whose counts sum to . The supplementary program instead evaluates both the polarisation and the coherence rule for every event; its own comments state that “EQP+NEQP = 1 and EQC+NEQC = 1 separately” and that “the four fractions are NOT intended to sum to one”. Execution confirms that the four fractions sum to 2 at every angle. Eq. (88) therefore does not describe the implemented algorithm.

As implemented, is an average of products of local coherence outcomes, additionally averaged over absolute analyser orientation. Being generated by local functions of under a common preparation, such averages are subject to the CHSH bound (A2, A5); a harmonic shape in this angular summary does not by itself indicate a violation, which would require four consistently defined setting pairs. The program’s run report compares with on the interval only; its behaviour over the full cycle is taken up in C6.

C6. The doubled-angle harmonic appears only after a sign convention. Section 4.3.4 states that “the coherence imbalance exhibits the smooth doubled–angle, two–period harmonic”, and Section 4.3.6 that it “exhibits a doubled angular dependence and therefore has period in the analyzer separation”, from which the double-cover interpretation is drawn (E8). The implemented coherence rule does not produce this. Under the doubled-angle terms that select the blade are unchanged, while both single-angle phases change sign; away from threshold ties the coherence outcome therefore reverses, and . Execution of BiSM_v2 confirms this: , whereas . Over the full cycle the Fourier coefficient of is ; its dominant component is the first harmonic (coefficient of about ). On the data do follow , consistent with Eq. (94), , when is read as the separation folded into ; that function is not -periodic in .

The program then defines, for its portrait, an “oriented” coordinate for , describing this as a convention that “does not alter EQC or NEQC”. Only this coordinate carries a component (coefficient ) and is -periodic. The paper describes the portrait as the ordered pair of Eq. (95) and does not mention the sign reversal. The figure-eight thus contains an imposed orientation convention, and the doubled harmonic on which Section 4.3.6 relies is a property of that convention rather than of the raw populations. The lemniscate of Gerono, , illustrates the shape obtained from these two harmonics; the implemented polarisation coordinate is approximately triangular rather than exactly . The experiment proposed in Section 5.1.2 would require an operational means of controlling , resolving the two sectors, and deriving their observable statistics under that controlled preparation; the paper does not yet supply these.

D. Framing of the result

The introduction states that “Section 3 questions Bell’s locality theorem” and that “Failure of either locality or joint definability leads to failure of Bell’s locality theorem”. It also states that the work “does not challenge Bell’s derivation”, and Conclusion 5, like [5], calls both theorems “mathematically valid”. These positions are compatible only if “failure” means that the theorem’s hypotheses are not met; a theorem whose hypotheses are not met does not thereby fail.

The introduction states that “The CHSH bound applies to correlations constructed solely from Boolean outcomes ”. The bound is ; is the per- value (Eq. (62)). The same passage attributes the violation to “additional geometric effects” before any argument is given.

The paper states that “Entanglement is not required since the quaternion carries their common phase”, and that the bivector singlet of Eq. (9) “is not entangled”. Whether such a construction yields a Bell-local model depends on the conditions set out in A5: local response functions, a common setting-independent distribution, and correlations formed from products of outcomes. For the model’s local responses these conditions are met (A1, A2, A4); for the cosine they are not shown (B1, C1).

E. Physical claims made without derivation

E1.  follows from the chosen function. It is obtained by maximising , which the paper calls “the simplest symmetric measure”. The maximum at is a property of that chosen function, not a consequence of symmetry as such (the equally symmetric has a minimum there), and no evolution or stability analysis links the extremum to a dynamical bifurcation. The quantum limit thus remains what [4] called a “structural postulate”.

E2. The Dirac-equation step is asserted. The coupled equation of Eq. (42) does not by itself imply the separate equalities and of Eq. (43). These require an independent restriction on the operators or their domains, which is asserted on the grounds that and act in opposite parity sectors but is not shown; a parity label is not an annihilation property. The statement “This occurs, as we show, at ” is not supported by Eqs. (37)–(44), in which does not appear; any dependence on would need to be exhibited.

E3.  and Noether. The identification of with the angular momentum of the spin-1 state is asserted, without stating whether a component or a magnitude is meant. The statement that spin “does not become classical as unlike continuous variables governed by Noether’s theorem” attributes to Noether’s theorem a content it does not have: the theorem connects continuous symmetries of the dynamics with conservation laws, and does not classify discrete observables as exempt from classical limits. A fixed-spin limit and a large-spin semiclassical limit are also different and should be distinguished.

E4. No quantitative account of beta decay. Section 5.2.1 states that “A cleaved and free blade is indistinguishable from a neutrino”; Section 5.2.3 states that “There can be no neutrinos produced in the BiSM with its intact blades”. The paper distinguishes cleaved from intact blades, so these statements need not contradict each other, and it states that “no detailed BiSM reaction or assignment of charge is proposed here”. Until such a model is given, the proposal does not account quantitatively for the continuous beta spectrum and the energy and angular-momentum balance of the decay, which the neutrino hypothesis was introduced to explain.

E5. Assigned parity does not establish conservation in the decay. “The BiSM electron is odd to party [sic] while the Fermi electron of the SM is even to parity. This difference demonstrates that parity is not violated in the BiSM.” Parity assigned to one state does not show that the decay dynamics conserve parity or reproduce the asymmetry measured in the Wu experiment.

E6. Rhetorical claims supply no evidence for the alternative. Section 5.5.7 states that developments in quantum information “have no rational explanation”. The paper elsewhere acknowledges the experimental success of quantum mechanics and questions its interpretation; the statement expresses a philosophical position and supplies no mathematical evidence for the proposed alternative. Similarly, the assertion that “control of these new parameters restores determinism” (Section 5.1.1) would require preparation procedures and detector-response predictions for and , which are not given.

E7. The coherence analogy does not establish Bell-local correlations. Section 5.1.4 likens EPR correlations to “lasers, superconductors, superfluids, and Bose–Einstein condensates where collective behaviour emerges through long–range phase coherence”, and Section 4.3.5 to the double-slit experiment. The ordinary double-slit pattern invoked there is a single-particle distribution, whereas Bell’s theorem concerns joint statistics at two space-like separated stations with freely chosen settings. Macroscopic coherent systems are described quantitatively by quantum mechanics, and the analogy does not by itself supply a local model of two-station correlations.

E8. The double-cover claim is not established by a frequency ratio. Section 4.3.6 states that the original blade configuration is restored only after “a total rotation of of the blades”, and calls this “a geometric realization of the double cover ”. Unit quaternions do carry the standard double cover: with acting on vectors by , and induce the same rotation, and a physical rotation through lifts from to . Establishing that the proposed blade dynamics realise this structure requires showing how rotations about different axes, and their compositions, lift; a fixed frequency ratio about one axis does not establish it. Moreover, the period- dependence offered as its statistical signature is not present in the raw coherence data (C6). The same claim appears in [5].

F. Procedural note

The paper cites the two Quantum Reports articles [2, 3] addressed in the published Comment [4] and the author’s Reply [5], but does not cite either, or explicitly identify its responses to their specific objections, although both precede it and bear directly on its Sections 3.5, 3.6 and 5.5. The legend of Figure 3 defines the plotted mustache as the difference between the quaternion and Bell curves, the construction the Comment described as a modeling postulate. The paper’s central joint-definability argument restates, in new terminology, the argument of the Reply. The difference is that the paper now specifies explicit local response functions and a common source distribution (Eqs. (15), (16), (85), Definition 12). It is these, rather than the labels “local” and “deterministic”, that bring the local-response component within the scope of Bell’s and Fine’s theorems (A5).

G. Summary

The analysis establishes three related findings:

1. The local response functions of the model are defined on a common source domain with a setting-independent distribution, so Lemma 3 and Corollary 3 do not hold for them (A1–A4, A8).
2. Their product correlations therefore satisfy the CHSH bound, and by the equivalence the author quotes a joint distribution exists; the paper’s own simulation of these outcomes yields the Bell triangle (A5, C4).
3. The correlation is obtained from a scalar computed jointly from both stations’ phases and then digitised; it is not shown to be the correlation of the local outcomes (B1, B5, C1–C3). The supplementary programs further show that the BiSM_v2 populations do not form the stated partition, and that the doubled-angle harmonic appears only after a sign convention (C5, C6).

Declaration on the use of generative AI

This document was written with the assistance of Anthropic’s Claude Opus 5.5, under the direction of the authors, using material from the cited publications and the supplementary programs in [1]. Drafts were also reviewed for consistency and accuracy using OpenAI models (ChatGPT and Codex), and resulting suggestions were incorporated following manual review. Every claim in this document has been independently verified by both authors.

References

1. B. Sanctuary, Joint Definability, Context–Instantiated Geometry, and the Inapplicability of Fine’s Theorem, Quantum Rep. 2026, 8, 96. doi:10.3390/quantum8030096 (including Supplementary Data: quantumrep-08-00096-s001.zip).
2. B. Sanctuary, EPR Correlations Using Quaternion Spin, Quantum Rep. 2024, 6, 409–425. doi:10.3390/quantum6030026
3. B. Sanctuary, Spin Helicity and the Disproof of Bell’s Theorem, Quantum Rep. 2024, 6, 436–441. doi:10.3390/quantum6030028
4. A. L. Vrba, A Collective Comment on “Spin Helicity and the Disproof of Bell’s Theorem” and Sanctuary’s Bivector Spin Framework (2023–2025), Quantum Rep. 2026, 8(2), 56. doi:10.3390/quantum8020056
5. B. Sanctuary, Reply to Vrba, A.L. A Collective Comment on “Sanctuary, B. ‘Spin Helicity and the Disproof of Bell’s Theorem’ and Sanctuary’s Bivector Spin Framework (2023–2025)”, Quantum Rep. 2026, 8, 57. doi:10.3390/quantum8030057
6. J. S. Bell, On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox, Physics Physique Fizika 1964, 1, 195–200.
7. A. Fine, Hidden variables, joint probability, and the Bell inequalities, Phys. Rev. Lett. 1982, 48, 291.