
#91
Dec1010, 09:09 AM

PF Gold
P: 1,642

YES! Pepperoni + Steely Dan = makes my life worth living!! (sorry for the "sentence violation", going to jail now... ) 



#92
Dec1010, 09:12 AM

PF Gold
P: 1,376

The thing is that you don't detect all photons that leave beam splitter but only portion. Typically you have around 10% coincidence rate i.e. you discard 9/10 of detections because you don't have matching detection at the other side. Idea of fair sampling assumption is that if you would detect them it would not change observed correlations. So if you assume that detected sample of photons is biased then you have to conclude that photon tests don't prove nonlocality. And I would like to add that this is the only way out of the paradox consistent with local realism. Btw there was another idea (so called "locality loophole") but it was disproved by experiment with fast switching polarizers. And you can try to look here as well: Loopholes in Bell test experiments 



#94
Dec1010, 10:41 AM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 5,146

2. zonde has given a pretty good answer already. This is a very complex question and the answers tend to arouse controversy. But the short answer is that NO local realistic explanation also matches QM. In the view of zonde, local realism + fair sampling can match QM experimentally. This is far from certain (but *may* be possible). What is certain is that such local realism means that a complete sample will not agree with QM. Which follows Bell's Theorem, which essentially states: No physical theory of local Hidden Variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of Quantum Mechanics. 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
A Bell Theorem with no locality assumption?  Quantum Physics  79  
Question about Dr. Chinese's example of Bell's Theorem  Quantum Physics  8  
The illusion of separability and the irrelevance of Bell's theorem  Quantum Physics  0  
Bell Theorem  Quantum Physics  115  
Bohm Interpretation and Bell Theorem  Quantum Physics  24 