**the exact time-development laws called**. This inescapable conclusion debunks the myth that the Bell inequality can be used in entanglement experiments to demonstrate superluminal effects and implies that quantum mechanics (QM) assumptions that system time-evolution is fundamentally probabilistic (not exact) are questionable. In short, use of the Bell inequality in entanglement experiments acts to establish that legacy QM formalism has been hopelessly flawed, no doubt including the unjustified assumption of continuous space-time.

**bit operations**[2] [3] [4] in binary mechanics (BM) [5] prevent particle entanglement experiments from demonstrating non-local "spooky action at a distance"**Fig. 1: Unintended Result Surprises Investigators**

Legend: Believers in superliminal causality face their worst nightmare, caught in the headlights of binary mechanics.

If theoretical physics was not presently embroiled in so many dead-end streets, observation that

**an object such as entangled particles may maintain properties over time**might be considered as little more than a trivial fact. A poster-child example of such dead-end, legacy theoretical physics may be the saga of experiments using entanglement to show violation of the Bell inequality and by implication, so-called instantaneous action at a distance. Indeed, this saga might rival string theory in triggering the "when all else fails..." rule [6] finally leading to consideration of other alternatives or assumptions.

**Local Realism**

In the famous 1935 "EPR" paper by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen, a paradox was presented to support the possibility that a physical theory implementing "local realism" might be described in the future. Some 60 years later, the 1994 paper on BM [5] did exactly that, defining exact time-development laws. With quantization of space, time and energy, the infinitesimal operators in QM formalism and used in the Standard Model were no longer applicable since only integer increments in position (space) and time (quantized ticks) were allowed mathematically. For mathematical consistency with quantized space and time, four bit operations were developed from a pair of relativistic Dirac spinor equations of opposite handedness, eliminating uncertainty in how any physical system evolves over time.

BM is "local" insofar as all actions occur over a distance d in one time tick t, where d and t are the fundamental length and time constants respectively. Hence, the maximum non-locality in spatial position is length d and in time is the interval t [7]. Otherwise, BM locality is thought to be consistent with "local relativistic causality". The "realism" component in BM asserts that 1-state bits in a system state exist whether they are observed by people or not.

**Freedom Loophole**

As a credit to the intellectual honesty of investigators using entanglement paradigms to test Bell inequality, there is general agreement that

**reported violation of local causality might be explained by a so-called "freedom loophole"**. On the other hand, this possibility -- the one postulated by BM in 1994 -- is disparaged as much as possible, perhaps to justify the enormous effort to remove all loopholes allowing alternative explanations of these experiments over many decades. Thus, the freedom loophole has been characterized as "superdeterministic", "non-freedom", "absolute determinism", "implausible", "loss of freedom to choose", "unscientific" and the like.

Why is such extreme language used in physics literature and commentary? Not just deterministic, but "superdeterministic". Not just raising questions about freedom, but "non-freedom". Not just determinism, but "absolute determinisim". Not just difficult to imagine, but "implausible". Not just raising questions about free will, but "loss of freedom to choose". Not just posing new questions in science, but "unscientific". The need for such melodramatic descriptions is simple, namely that

**entanglement experiments alone cannot eliminate the freedom loophole**. Instead, any viable local realism theory must itself be falsified. In the absence of experiment undermining the veracity of BM as the leading local realism theory, the extreme language may be little more than a sort of propaganda ploy: "Believe in superluminal effects shown by Bell inequality violation or you are an anti-freedom jerk." Such propaganda may obscure the fact that loophole-free entanglement experiments showing superluminal causality may be impossible in principle.

**Superluminal Causality Issues**

Unfortunately, believers in the Bell Theorem [1], that no theory such as BM can reproduce all the predictions of QM, may have several problems:

**More frequently as finer levels of detail are examined by the outstanding experimentalists in the physics community, researchers appear to be encountering defects in QM predictions. If this is true, one would not want to reproduce all QM predictions, making this nutshell version of the Bell Theorem inapplicable or irrelevant.**

*1. Inapplicable Math.*First, the QM wave function misrepresenting position in continuous (real number) coordinates is only an approximation of actual positions where only integer coordinates are allowed with spatial quantization. Second, infinitesimal operators are quite simply the wrong math when position and time may have only integer values in the BM quantized space-time frame. Thus, at the fineness level of BM, QM predictions may be distorted or outright incorrect. As a consequence, the success of QM formalism at the atomic level is becoming more difficult to duplicate at the nuclear physics level.

**The exact time-development laws in BM describe how any physical system changes over time given its initial state. The advantage of this exactness is that fudge factors like Heisenberg uncertainty need not be routinely considered. Another advantage is that scientific discipline is mandatory. For example, there are no excuses like "Well, this was not predicted exactly but Heisenberg uncertainty will save us." Even worst are QM predictions requiring Heisenberg uncertainty.**

*2. Mandatory Scientific Discipline.***The exactness in bit operations implementation also suggests precision, stability and reproducibility. Would the reader prefer to remain intact in one piece as the human body speeds through space with the earth at thousands of kilometers per hour with reference to the fixed star frame? BM may be the only physical theory today that may assure survival at such velocities. Else every instant would be a terrifying cliff-hanger, "Will I remain intact and alive, or be splattered on the wall in billions of tiny bits of blood, sweat, tears and tissue due to the wonderful intrinsic uncertainty in QM"? Without the precision of the bit operations, similar to that seen in digital data processing, how could we possibly remain intact? The QM thinking that this or that particle in our body might be here or there or some probability to be everywhere might be stimulating to the imagination, but deadly when it comes to survival.**

*3. Deadly Indeterminism.***A recent report [8] described the possibility of two relevant frames: (1) the BM space-time frame and (2) the observational frame. If these two frames are not identical, hypotheses in the observational frame can be tested in BM simulations [9], as long as length and time values can be projected from one frame to the other. Likewise, length and time values from results of simulations in the BM frame can be expressed in the observational frame for confirmation of a simulation result in the laboratory. A fact of present interest is that sentient humans are embedded in the observational frame. Thus, physicists might show some care to conclude that they, as entities embedded in the observational frame, might necessarily be fairly characterized as lacking "freedom to choose" or "free will" based only on exact time-evolution laws in the BM frame. Such a casual mixture of science and philosophy may not be warranted.**

*4. Philosophy In Physics.***Entanglement experiments using up and down spin have apparently not clearly considered the recently described physical mechanisms involved [10] and their implications regarding purported Bell inequality violations. This analysis identified two factors determining an up-down spin or polarization result: (1) particle time phase and (2) elemental electromagnetic (EM) resonance. The first may be considered as a particle property which might or might not change over time and which is "local" to the particle at its location. The second resonance factor depends on time parity, namely the odd or even parity of a Tick interval equal to the four ticks t required to implement each of the fundamental bit operations. In particular, after an odd or even Tick cycle, the EM resonance state is thought to be similar throughout all space to the previous Tick of the same parity. Therefore, spin measurements made at distant locations in the same Tick interval or parity, might share this factor in spin or polarization measurement results to some measurable extent. Without consideration of this recent work in 2015, descriptions of entanglement using up-down spin or photon polarization may appear somewhat primitive, omitting completely the second factor of elemental EM resonance.**

*5. Up-Down Spin Mechanisms.***The derivation of Bell's theorem assumes a "local probability space". However, there is no such thing in the BM spatial frame. At any time tick t, the system state is entirely described by the bit function (a quantized update of the QM wave function), where each bit locus is definitely in either a 1- or 0-state. That is, a bit locus is either 100 percent or 0 percent probability in the 1-state. Thus, BM may deprive the Bell theorem of one of its two fundamental assumptions. Poof: no Bell theorem.**

*6. Inaccurate Local Realism Formalism.***Believers that Bell inequality violation in quantum entanglement excludes local realism and includes superluminal effects may sometimes tend to explain all this subject matter in terms of particles as little people -- what the particle "knows" and when it knows it, etc. This tendency may not be a critical issue, but it can be annoying or distract attention from real critical issues. In contrast, BM postulates abstract spatial objects of finite size which may contain abstract binary 1-state bits of energy (the bit function system state) and which contain physical mechanisms able to implement the fundamental bit operations in four tick cycles. None of the spatial structures, physical mechanisms or binary bits need to "know" anything.**

*7. Implied Anthropomorphism.***The measurement apparatus angle used to describe Bell theorem formalism is assumed to be a scalar analog variable. In contrast, strictly speaking, angle is a quantized variable in BM which can only assume specific values based on integer distances in three dimensions. The analog nature of the angle variable arises from aggregation of very large numbers of scattering events at nominal 90 degree angles which occur in the strong bit operation [3]. This perhaps minor, but potentially significant point is essentially a sub-topic of item #1 above.**

*8. Analog Angle Assumption.***Discussion**

Bell inequality violation and hence, its interpretation as superluminal effects with instantaneous action at a distance appear to be widely accepted in the physics community. Indeed, investigators are apparently working on experiments to demonstrate such violations where almost all loopholes are filled. However, the present article argues that such work is not necessary with any rationale whatsoever, since BM represents the so-called freedom loophole which cannot be excluded by entanglement experiment. Instead, freedom loophole elimination may require convincing falsification of BM postulates. At present, it may be fair to say that the entanglement work thus far showing Bell inequality violation tends to undermine some fundamentals in QM rather than the local realism in BM (Fig. 1). In short, while intended to achieve goal A (debunking local realism), this experimental work has resulted in achieving goal B (debunking features of QM).

**Editor's note: The reader is invited to post comments in agreement or disagreement with this or other**

*Journal of Binary Mechanics*articles at the Binary Mechanics Forum. The Journal also welcomes on-topic articles from other investigators and persons considering serving on the Journal's editorial board.**References**

[1] Wikipedia. "Bell's Theorem" November, 2015.

[2] Keene, J. J. "Electromagnetic bit operations revised" J. Bin. Mech. March, 2011.

[3] Keene, J. J. "Strong operation disabled by inertia" J. Bin. Mech. March, 2011.

[4] Keene, J. J. "Fundamental forces in physics" J. Bin. Mech. October, 2014.

[5] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics" J. Bin. Mech. July, 2010.

[6] Keene, J. J. "Physics glossary" J. Bin. Mech. May, 2011.

[7] Keene, J. J. "Solved physics mysteries" June, 2011.

[8] Keene, J. J. "Intrinsic electron spin and fundamental constants" J. Bin. Mech. January, 2015.

[9] Keene, J. J. "Binary Mechanics Lab Simulator update" J. Bin. Mech. December, 2015.

[10] Keene, J. J. "Particle up-down spin and quantized time parity" J. Bin. Mech. January, 2015.

© 2015 James J Keene