The short answer is No. The reason is that the phase offsets between states in superposition is the effect, not the cause of the fundamental difference between the quantum mechanics of a physical system and its classical limit, which is the space of states: A quantum system has infinitely many more states than its classical limit.

Also, what Bell's inequalities do is impose constraints on the sort of states that can describe the degrees of freedom, that resolve quantum fluctuations. What wasn't understood when quantum mechanics was being developed, was that the defining characteristic of quantum mechanics isn't indeterminism, since classical mechanics, also, can be non-deterministic, as was discovered by Poincaré and remarked by Einstein, though not followed up. The defining characteristic of quantum mechanics is the description of the degrees of freedom that can describe quantum fluctuations. What these degrees of freedom can be, remains to be discovered. They have been discovered only for the case of extremal black holes (as the strings and branes that can account for the entropy of these black holes).

Conceptual Overlap with My Work on Bell Correlations and Phase Structure

Dear Dr. Thébault,

I recently read your preprint “Local Phase Offset as a Classical Alternative to Quantum Superposition” (ResearchGate, July 19, 2025). Several of its core ideas—including deterministic geometric phase offsets, signal demodulation analogies, and an epistemic account of quantum randomness—closely reflect concepts I developed in my peer-reviewed work.

In particular, your approach mirrors the arguments in my paper “Bell Doesn’t Play Dice! The Classical Mechanical Origin of Quantum Entanglement” (March 2025), currently under review at Quantum Studies: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/389691107_Bell_Doesn't_Play_Dice_The_Classical_Mechanical_Origin_of_Quantum_Entanglement These ideas are also part of my broader Elementary Cycles Theory.

While convergence in science is natural, the timing, conceptual overlap, and absence of citation raise serious concerns. I trust this may have been unintentional—perhaps due to inadvertent reuse via AI tools such as ChatGPT—and I’m reaching out directly in good faith.

I kindly ask you to review the matter and consider appropriate steps, such as citation, clarification, or open discussion. Failing a timely response, I will consider submitting this case to the relevant editorial and platform bodies.

Sincerely, Donatello Dolce, Ph.D. Theoretical Physicist www.elementarycycles.org

Dear Dolce Donatello

Thank you for your message and for taking the time to review my preprint “Local Phase Offset as a Classical Alternative to Quantum Superposition” (July 2025). I appreciate the opportunity to clarify both the origins and the philosophical structure of my approach.

My model is rooted in foundational research I conducted in the early 1990s on time-phase estimation and digital demodulation. This led to European Patent EP0498704B1 (1992), for which I am both a listed co-inventor and the principal author of the original draft, in collaboration with the patent attorney. Part 1 of my preprint is essentially identical in mathematical structure and signal-processing logic to the formalism introduced in that patent. My later work simply transposes this framework into spatial domains relevant for photonic systems. I initially presented these ideas at GRETSI 1991 and still retain the original proceedings as PDF.

The formulation in my preprint represents a deliberate shift—not a reformulation of quantum theory per se, but a reframing using the epistemic and operational tools of classical signal processing. The phase structure is deterministic in its model form, but the framework explicitly includes practical uncertainties such as jitter, offsets, and desynchronization, as encountered in real-world digital and photonic systems. This grounding in engineering logic distinguishes it from traditional quantum field theoretical approaches.

Your work also engages with classical reconstructions of quantum correlations, but through a very different formalism involving cyclic spacetime and intrinsic periodicity, remaining conceptually embedded in quantum field language. I must be honest in saying I do not fully understand the internal machinery of your model, and I have not reused or adapted any of its constructs. I have not found any reusable or structurally mappable components between our respective frameworks.

To avoid any misunderstanding, I have archived a comprehensive bundle of timestamped materials—available upon request—which includes dated LaTeX files, my 2023 experimental proposal, and my earlier GRETSI presentation. These materials clearly document the independent development of my approach well before your preprint.

If you believe specific conceptual overlaps exist—such as in the treatment of Bell-type correlations—I invite you to indicate precisely which sections of my paper you believe correspond to your own. I remain open to scholarly discussion and will carefully review any direct claims of overlap you bring forward.

Philosophically, our frameworks are also divergent in their treatment of time. As outlined in my companion paper “Proof Time Is Out of Reality”, I reject the ontological reality of time altogether: only the causal present (T₍real₎ = 0) is real, and all temporal structure is epistemic and emergent. Your approach, by contrast, presupposes intrinsic periodic time as physically real—a position fundamentally incompatible with my own. That divergence alone limits the prospect for formal integration.

You may also have overlooked that my preprint barely references time, apart from a single notational signal equation on p. 10:

r(t)=s(t)⋅ej(Δϕ+n(t))r(t) = s(t) \cdot e^{j(\Delta\phi + n(t))}

This is a standard representation in photonic and communication systems, not a metaphysical assertion about time.

My model is already digitally indexed and supports my broader transition to a “presentic” physical framework. This is developed more explicitly in my recent preprint:

👉 Reality Occurs Only in the Eternal Now: Time Collapses to the Causal Origin T₍real₎ = 0 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/393442493_Reality_occurs_only_int_the_eternal_now_Time_collapses_to_the_causal_origin_Treal0

I would also like to acknowledge that Rupert Spira’s explanation of time and causality as mental constructs—particularly in this video I watched on 12 May—helped confirm my transition toward the present-centered model: 👉 https://www.youtube.com/shorts/3Xtcyr9aYac

In conclusion, while I see no possibility of merging our formalisms, I do believe that the convergence of classical ideas in quantum modeling is a sign of progress. I will include a citation to your preprint in the next revision of my paper, acknowledging it as a published precedent in the classical reintegration of phase into quantum theory—even though our models are formally and ontologically incompatible.

Finally, my current preprint already includes proposals for experiments using multiple interferometers to estimate the unknown phase. Beyond that, I have several additional unpublished ideas—not limited to optics—that may offer empirical leverage. If you or your collaborators have access to suitable experimental platforms, I would be happy to contribute suggestions in the spirit of constructive testing.

Sincerely, Bertrand D. Thébault

Dear Stam Nicolis

Short Version : This article presents the first end-to-end model—including an experimental proposal—of a hidden phase unaccounted for by Bell’s theorem. Specifically, it introduces a hidden phase arising from an unknown angular misalignment between the particle’s local frame and the measurement apparatus’s local frame. There is no fundamental reason why these local frames should be naturally aligned, yet modern physics almost invariably assumes that the Schrödinger equation is formulated within a single, global frame shared by both particles and apparatus. This model directly challenges that assumption—including on a particle-by-particle basis—by proposing that the Schrödinger equation is formulated in the particle’s own local frame at the moment of emission, rather than in any universal global frame.

Long Version: This article presents the first end-to-end model—including an experimental proposal—of a hidden phase unaccounted for by Bell’s theorem. Bell’s inequalities were never derived to exclude models involving a hidden, particle-specific phase.

In my model, the hidden variable is an unknown phase resulting from a spatial misalignment between the local coordinate frame of the emitted particle and the local frame of the measurement apparatus. There is no compelling physical or formal reason to assume that these frames are just instances of a single global reference frame. While the Schrödinger equation governs local quantum evolution, it does not impose any requirement of alignment with a universal frame—yet such alignment is often assumed by default when interpreting measurements.

To formalize: let Fp​ denote the local coordinate frame of the emitted particle p, and Fa​ the local frame of the apparatus. Suppose their relative orientation is described by a rotation R∈SO(3)R \in SO(3)R∈SO(3). Then a local measurement Ma​ performed in Fa​ corresponds to a transformed measurement Mp=R−1Ma​ when expressed in the particle’s frame Fp​. This transformation is independent of the phase evolution governed by Schrödinger dynamics.

If the apparatus is further rotated by R′, its frame becomes Fa′=R′Fa​, while Fp​ remains unchanged, anchored to the quantum source. The resulting measurement becomes Mp=(RR′)^−1Ma′​. These frames are therefore demonstrably non-coincident.

This independence between local frames implies that, even under deterministic evolution, a hidden phase offset φ(R) can exist between Fp​ and Fa or or φ(RR′) between Fp and Fa'​. This offset functions as a hidden variable—a geometric relational misalignment whose value is unknown and can be treated as probabilistic at the point of detection.

Importantly:

• In coherent optical systems, where all particles originate from the same emission source with a shared frame Fp​, the phase offset can be considered deterministic in principle, so only unknow for first particles, (unless a random R is voluntary applied for each particle Fp)
• In incoherent sources such as electron–electron experiments, each particle p1,p2,…,pn​ may be emitted from a different atom, each with a potentially distinct local frame Fp1,Fp2,…,Fpn​​ (depending on material structure). In such cases, the phase offset becomes geometrically random, by our ignorance of the specific frame misalignment for each particle.

Thus, the model circumvents a central assumption of Bell-type inequalities: the existence of a globally consistent mapping between measurement axes across particles and apparatus.

• This is the first article which proposes an experiment to test this hidden phase detector to confirm of infirm this hidden phase model.
• The hidden phase model is obviously incompatible with Gauge theory. Gauge theory did not help physicists to find out this basic engineering hidden phase model (obvious time to spacial analogy from PSK demodulation)

Warm regards,

Bertrand D. Thébault

Dear Dr. Thébault,

Thank you for your detailed reply. However, I must respectfully clarify several points.

You refer to foundational work from the 1990s, including a 1992 patent and proceedings from GRETSI 1991. Yet, despite this claim, no verifiable academic or technical record appears to substantiate the key conceptual developments presented in your 2025 preprint—particularly regarding Bell-type violations derived from deterministic phase shifts and demodulation analogies.

By contrast, these precise ideas—geometric phase offsets reconstructing quantum correlations, epistemic interpretations via angular misalignment, and signal-processing analogies grounded in intrinsic periodicity—are original to and extensively developed in my peer-reviewed work over more than a decade, culminating in:

“Bell Doesn’t Play Dice! The Classical Mechanical Origin of Quantum Entanglement” (March 2025) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/389691107

You suggest that your framework is “grounded in engineering” and conceptually distinct. However, this does not explain the substantial similarity in the structural role of phase offsets, nor the analogous interpretation of Bell inequality violations within a classical deterministic model.

Your statement that you “do not fully understand the internal machinery” of my model, and have “not reused or adapted” its constructs, is contradicted by the conceptual overlap itself. In academic publishing, parallelism of core ideas—regardless of terminology—requires citation when prior art exists.

Moreover, I must stress a broader concern: the uncritical use of AI tools such as ChatGPT in elaborating scientific ideas can easily lead to plagiarism, especially when used by amateur or independent researchers without up-to-date familiarity with the relevant literature. If such tools recombine publicly available ideas without attribution, and the author does not actively verify originality, the result may be an unintended—but serious—breach of academic ethics.

At present, I find no traceable evidence supporting your claim of priority in the 1990s or since, while my works remain publicly documented and openly accessible for years. I therefore urge you to acknowledge the overlap and take appropriate corrective steps.

In the absence of a satisfactory resolution, I will proceed to submit a formal report to platform and editorial authorities, accompanied by a comparative analysis of the overlapping content.

Sincerely, Donatello Dolce

Subject: Version 1.01 of My Preprint – Including Your Citations

Dear Dr Dolce Donatello

Please find attached version 1.01 of my preprint, in which I have included two citations of your work. I trust they will be satisfactory to you.

Your contributions are foundational and clearly precede mine in the public record. That said, my investigation into the role of phase in quantum effects — particularly the hidden phase parameter and its experimental implications — has been conducted entirely independently.

I have preserved two private emails, dated 8 November 2023 and 13 March 2025, both shared with trusted colleagues — each a PhD-level physicist.

• The first, titled "Request for Experimentation: Collapse of the Wave Function", outlines an experimental setup designed to investigate wavefunction collapse at the photon emission stage. It specifies the required quantum optics equipment — including a photon generator, optical fibers, an interferometer, and associated devices — in preparation for a physical test of the proposed collapse mechanism.
• The second includes the line: "Call for Verification: New Model with Hidden Parameters in Quantum Physics."

In addition, I hold a sworn third-party attestation, dated 24 July 2025, from a colleague holding a postgraduate degree in Theoretical & Applied Mechanics. He confirms that I shared the central ideas of this model with him during a private exchange in June 2024. To quote his recollection: “You mentioned that the experiment would highlight the fact that phases are different based on the location of the measuring device with respect to the source, which may involve some uncertainty in the measure itself.”

Taken together, these materials establish a clear and documented timeline of independent conceptual development, well before any knowledge or exposure to your own publications.

In a future version, I will more clearly delimit the quantum domain — specifically, the region where collapse occurs — as my model is fundamentally more classical in nature than yours. Consequently, while the expression exp⁡(jΔϕ) will be retained for the free particle case, it will be confined to the complex plane, no longer treated as an operator within the Hilbert space formalism. This marks a departure from your approach, in which the same expression retains an operational role within the quantum framework.

Now that your name is associated with mine in the public record, I sincerely hope we might collaborate to further develop the experimental proposal I have outlined — particularly in light of the geometric simplification I propose, which I believe complements your work but is not explicitly addressed in your publications.

Best regards

Bertrand D. Thébault

Preprint Local Phase Offset as a Classical Alternative to Quantum Superposition

Dear Dr Dolce Donatello

Subject: Clarification Regarding Conceptual Distinctions and Public Statement

I would like to raise a concern regarding what appears to be a misunderstanding—or possible misrepresentation—of my model in your recent public statement.

You have claimed that ideas such as “geometric phase offsets reconstructing quantum correlations” are original to and extensively developed in your peer-reviewed work, culminating in your March 2025 paper “Bell Doesn’t Play Dice!”

However, after a careful review of your publications, I have found no treatment of spatial phase geometry—in particular, no development of phase offsets arising from position-dependent spatial configurations of source and detector, as central to my model. Instead, your framework appears to focus exclusively on time-originated phases and intrinsic periodicity.

To ensure objectivity, I asked ChatGPT to conduct a neutral expert analysis of your March 2025 preprint. The resulting report does not confirm your claim that “geometric phase offsets reconstructing quantum correlations” are developed in your paper. The report concludes that your formalism remains rooted in temporal cyclic dynamics, with no explicit development of spatially grounded phase structures.

May I therefore ask: could you please specify the exact paragraph and page in which geometric phase offsets reconstructing quantum correlations—in the spatial sense—are developed in your March 2025 paper?

I raise this request in the interest of academic clarity and intellectual integrity. Our models are built on fundamentally different premises, and I would appreciate your acknowledgment of this distinction.

If the current public framing remains uncorrected, I may need to seek clarification through the appropriate formal channels, and potentially initiate a formal complaint regarding excessive and unjustified allegations of plagiarism and the misattribution of intellectual property. That said, I remain hopeful that we can resolve this matter collegially and in the spirit of respectful scientific dialogue.

Please find a free plagscan report https://www.plagscan.com/en/ moderate risk of plagiarism. No AI involved.

Best regards,

Bertrand D. Thébault