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 Dr. Dolce,

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 origin and orientation of my approach.

My model is rooted in foundational research I conducted in the early 1990s on time-phase estimation and digital demodulation. This culminated in European Patent EP0498704B1 (1992) https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/39/df/2c/04ef2d2f040f42/EP0498704B1.pdf, for which I am a listed co-inventor and the principal author of the original draft. Part I of my preprint is mathematically and structurally identical to the core signal-processing formalism introduced in that patent. The same principles were presented at GRETSI 1991 (Juan-les-Pins), where I shared the full version of robust phase estimation for coherent demodulation. From 2023 I have transposed this engineering framework into spatial domains relevant to quantum contexts.

The formulation in my preprint represents a rethinking of the problem—not as a reinterpretation of quantum theory, but as an epistemic reframing based on the logic of digital signal processing (anticipating presentic physics where the now is indexed). While the model includes a deterministic phase structure, it explicitly accounts for practical uncertainties such as jitter, phase offsets, and desynchronization, as is standard in real-world communication and photonic systems. This grounding in engineering logic—not abstract quantum field formalism—is essential to my approach.

Your work also seeks classical underpinnings for quantum phenomena, but through a formalism involving cyclic spacetime and intrinsic periodicity that remains embedded in the language and ontology of quantum field theory. I must be candid in stating that I do not fully understand the internal machinery of your formalism, and I have not drawn from it. I have not identified any reusable or structurally mappable components between our frameworks since reading it today.

To avoid any misunderstanding: I will archive a comprehensive bundle of timestamped materials that document the independent development of my framework, including the relevant copy of 1991 GRETSI proceedings, my 2023 mail experimental proposal and my 2024 PDF drafts. These are available upon request, should formal verification be required.

If you believe specific conceptual overlaps exist—for instance, in the treatment of Bell-type correlations—I invite you to indicate clearly which sections of my work you believe correspond to your own. I will review any such input with appropriate scholarly rigor.

Philosophically, our models also diverge in their treatment of time. As outlined in my first "Presentic" Physics preprint:

👉 Reality Occurs Only in the Eternal Now: Time Collapses to the Causal Origin Treal=0T_{\text{real}} = 0Treal​=0 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/393442493_Reality_occurs_only_int_the_eternal_now_Time_collapses_to_the_causal_origin_Treal0

I hold that only the causal present (T₍real₎ = 0) is ontologically real, and that all temporal structure is potentially discrete and limited to the lifteime of the present where all causes and effects are realised (can't occcur in the past or the future). Your model presumes intrinsic periodic time as physically real, which is fundamentally incompatible with my position. This ontological divergence alone precludes any structural integration between our frameworks.

So you may also have overlooked that my preprint scarcely refers to time—aside from a single standard signal expression on p. 10:

r(t)=s(t)⋅ej(Δϕ+n(t)) which I consider a mistaken reminescence of signal-theoretic conventions, and it still difficult to write "presentic" physics. So my model is already digitally indexed and serves as a bridge to my broader program in "presentic" physics (Treal=0), where the now is discretely refreshed and evolve at velocity 1 from ISO 8601 time format.

I would also like to acknowledge that Rupert Spira’s explanation of time and causality as mental constructs—especially in this video I viewed on 12th May—helped confirm and reinforce this direction:

👉 https://www.youtube.com/shorts/3Xtcyr9aYac

In conclusion, although I see no possibility of formally merging our frameworks, I recognise the broader convergence around classical structures in quantum modeling as a positive development. I will cite your preprint in the next version of my paper, acknowledging it as a published precedent in the classical reintroduction of phase into quantum theory—even though our models are formally and ontologically incompatible.

Finally, my current preprint already includes experimental proposals involving multiple interferometers to estimate unknown phase offsets. If you or your collaborators have access to suitable experimental platforms, I would be honoured to contribute to validating the classical approach and to suggest additional thought experiments should initial tests prove successful.

Sincerely,

Bertrand D. Thébault

Subject: On Experimental Validation and Theoretical Compatibility

Dear Dr. Dolce,

Thank you for your continued engagement. I would like to raise a critical question regarding the practical implications of your model.

If, as you argue, a phase-based interpretation provides a clearer account of hidden variables in quantum correlations, why does your article offer no proposal for an experiment to directly detect such a phase? Specifically, why did you not suggest a phase-sensitive detection method akin to the one I presented in Section 31.1?

Isn’t the mark of a physical breakthrough not just conceptual clarity, but operational measurability?

Extract from my paper (Section 31.1): To extract the internal phase from physical observations, I proposed a finite array of NNN angularly spaced detectors covering the 2π2\pi2π phase circle. Each detector kkk is oriented at:

θk=2πkN,θk​=2π/kN​, k∈{0,1,…,N−1} and responds to the projection of the internal phase vector onto its axis. The resulting detection pattern yields a probability distribution peaked at the internal phase offset—making the hidden phase empirically accessible and bypassing ensemble idealizations.

While theoretical insight is vital, only experiment grounds it in physics. If phase misalignment truly underlies nonlocal correlations, we must prioritize strategies capable of detecting it.

As you can see, this detector model employs the same mathematical framework as my 1992 patent. The analogy is not coincidental—it was structurally anticipated. My aim has been to simplify overly abstract formalisms and render the model experimentally tractable. By contrast, your Cyclic-CM framework does neither, and notably omits any proposal for a phase-detection experiment—despite being predicated on phase structure.

Moreover, my paper demonstrates that gauge theory is incompatible with hidden phase models. Since Cyclic-CM is rooted in gauge-theoretic assumptions, it inherits this structural limitation—rendering it non-viable for explaining hidden phase correlations. The mismatch is deep: gauge theories rely on global symmetries that hidden phase models inherently break.

This theoretical incompatibility may explain why your preprint omits any concrete phase-detection scheme. I’m beginning to understand more clearly where our models diverge.

Therefore, let me propose we acknowledge the unintentional discovery overlap and respective contributions: you would retain priority on publishing the Bell-breaking framework (and I will cite you), while I retain priority for the hidden phase detector experiment—which, rather surprisingly, your preprint did not suggest. If you choose to incorporate such an experimental scheme in a future version of your prepint, I kindly ask that you cite my proposal accordingly. I understand that referencing a preprint that explicitly breaks U(1) gauge symmetry—on which Cyclic-CM appears to rely—poses a dilemma, but intellectual integrity requires it.

Please find attached two screenshots:

• My hidden phase detector experiment;
• My derivation showing the breaking of U(1) gauge symmetry, which your framework seems to depend on.

Best regards, Bertrand