Riemannian-Geometric Approach to Superdeterministic Bell-Violations

In the paper's words

The foundational conflict between the probabilistic non-locality of quantum mechanics and the geometric determinism of general relativity remains the central challenge of modern physics. This paper addresses the tension by proposing a locally causal framework where Bell-inequality violations emerge as a direct consequence of the intrinsic curvature of a discretized state-space manifold. By violating the “Measurement Independence” assumption through a global geometric constraint, we eliminate the need for non-local “spooky action” while preserving the causal structure of spacetime.

The abstract, verbatim, and its opening sentence is the claim. Every line below is quoted from the text.

Numbers it reports

1. If an experiment shows perfect entanglement scaling to 100 qubits, or if the noise is found to be perfectly Gaussian, the model is effectively falsified.

   from 4.5 Experimental

2. The simulation shows that for a resolution of $p=1024$, fidelity remains at 1.0 until the 10-qubit mark, after which it drops significantly.

   from 3.3 Entanglement

3. This data provides a specific lower bound for the fundamental prime $p$, suggesting it must be at least $10^{50}$ for current experimental consistency.

   from 3.6 Sensitivity Analysis of

4. Our analysis shows that for a resolution of $p=1024$, entanglement fidelity drops significantly at the 10-qubit mark, a threshold that is well within the reach of current quantum processors.

   from 4.5 Experimental

How it is done

1. Riemannian-Geometric Approach to Superdeterministic Bell-Violations: Addressing the Tension between Intrinsic Curvature and Statistical Independence Author: Rowan Brad Quni-Gudzinas Contact: rowan.quni@outlook.com ORCID: 0009-0002-4317-5604 ISNI: 0000000526456062 URL: https://papers.qnfo.org/papers/riemannian-geometric-approach-to-superdeterministic-bell-violations/ Date: 2026-02-09 Version: 1.0 Abstract : The foundational conflict between the probabilistic non-locality of quantum mechanics and the geometric determinism of general relativity remains the central challenge of modern physics.

   from A

2. While the perceived fine-tuning remains a point of contention for those wedded to flat-space logic, the geometric approach offers a more parsimonious explanation for Bell violations.

   from 1.2

3. The mechanism of the measure-zero constraint ensures that counterfactual measurement settings—those not realized in the experiment—simply do not exist on the invariant set (Hance, 2024).

   from 1.3 The Invariant Set

4. This Riemannian approach provides the necessary mathematical rigor to move toward a formal hypothesis.

   from 1.4 Intrinsic

What would falsify it

1. This counter-point is resolved by recognizing that the model provides a more robust and falsifiable foundation than any of its competitors.

   from 4.7 Limitations and Future

2. Furthermore, we identify a falsifiable “entanglement saturation” limit, predicting that entanglement fidelity must decay beyond $m = \log_2(p)$ qubits due to the finite information capacity of the invariant set.

   from A

3. The argument presented in this paper follows a logical progression from the formal mapping of state-space geometry to the experimental falsification of the superdeterministic hypothesis.

   from 1.7 Structure of the Argument

Where the claim stops

1. The primary limitation is the unknown value of the discretization prime $p$, which currently serves as a free parameter in our simulations of entanglement saturation.

   from 4.7 Limitations and Future

2. These challenges do not invalidate the core thesis but rather define the boundaries of the current evidence and the roadmap for future inquiry.

   from 4.7 Limitations and Future

3. The mechanism for addressing these limitations in future work involves the development of more sophisticated 4D dynamic simulations and the search for experimental bounds on the prime $p$.

   from 4.7 Limitations and Future

Where to read

1. 1.01,369 words · 6 min
2. 2.04,937 words · 21 min
3. 3.0 Results:5,365 words · 23 min
4. 4.06,661 words · 29 min
5. 5.0 Conclusion:5,821 words · 25 min
6. Appendices294 words · 1 min