# Never mind (Strange aspects of the Franson experiment)

by Stephen Parrott
Tags: aspects, experiment, franson, mind, strange
 P: n/a I just realized that it is *not* true that the "local realistic" model presented in Aerts, et al., is of the type considered by Bell. It is subtly different. Therefore, there is no reason for it to satisfy the Bell inequalities. So, it is not surprising that the experimental results of Kwiat, et al., violate the Bell inequalities. There is no contradiction. The Bell inequalities are irrelevant to this situation. The authors of the original Franson and Kwiat, et al., papers were clearly unaware of this. Aerts, et al., *were* aware of it and did say so in their paper, but it didn't penetrate this thick head even after several readings. I should have studied their construction more carefully. Anyone interested in these problems should realize that that their deceptively simple construction is actually quite remarkable. Many papers introduce the hypotheses for the Bell inequalities as the very *definition* of "local realism". One of the lessons of the Aerts, et al. paper is that this definition is probably too restrictive. A better definition is needed, but it isn't clear to me what it might be. Stephen Parrott
 P: n/a On Sep 12, 1:20 pm, Stephen Parrott wrote: > I just realized that it is *not* true that the "local realistic" > model presented in Aerts, et al., is of the type considered by Bell. > It is subtly different. > > Therefore, there is no reason for it to > satisfy the Bell inequalities. > So, it is not surprising that the experimental results of Kwiat, et al., > violate the Bell inequalities. > > There is no contradiction. > The Bell inequalities are irrelevant to this situation. > > The authors of the original Franson and Kwiat, et al., > papers were clearly unaware of this. Aerts, et al., *were* aware of it > and did say so in their paper, but it didn't penetrate this thick head > even after several readings. > > I should have studied their construction more carefully. > Anyone interested in these problems should realize that that > their deceptively simple construction is actually quite remarkable. > Many papers introduce the hypotheses for the Bell inequalities > as the very *definition* of "local realism". > One of the lessons of the Aerts, et al. paper is that > this definition is probably too restrictive. > A better definition is needed, but it isn't clear to me > what it might be. > > Stephen Parrott A variation on locality I've been thinking about is based on the proper distance between events. This allows the emitting event to be "simultaneous" with both of the detections at "A" and "B", in the sense of proper distance. This is only true for photons (or other particles traveling at light speed) however. I'm not sure this solves many problems, however. I am still having issues with reconciling the QM picture of particles radiating from a source (where the wave function can only describe probabilities) and the need in a theory like GR to account for stress-energy at all points so the geometry of space can be calculated. Realism seems to be a bit difficult to realize in light of QM experimental results. Rich L.
 P: n/a Stephen Parrott wrote: > > I just realized that it is *not* true that the "local realistic" > model presented in Aerts, et al., is of the type considered by Bell. > It is subtly different. > > Therefore, there is no reason for it to > satisfy the Bell inequalities. > So, it is not surprising that the experimental results of Kwiat, et al., > violate the Bell inequalities. > > There is no contradiction. > The Bell inequalities are irrelevant to this situation. > > The authors of the original Franson and Kwiat, et al., > papers were clearly unaware of this. Aerts, et al., *were* aware of it > and did say so in their paper, but it didn't penetrate this thick head > even after several readings. > > I should have studied their construction more carefully. > Anyone interested in these problems should realize that that > their deceptively simple construction is actually quite remarkable. > Many papers introduce the hypotheses for the Bell inequalities > as the very *definition* of "local realism". > One of the lessons of the Aerts, et al. paper is that > this definition is probably too restrictive. > A better definition is needed, but it isn't clear to me > what it might be. Theory is limited by imagination, then by what "must" be true, then by politics. Experiment then observation simply are. Milliken's charge of the electron slowly oozed to its current-day value, each reseacher in turn not wishing to push an obviously heretical number into peer review. All discovery is insubordination - ask Galileo or Harry Coover and Fred Joyner at Eastman Company in Tennessee. The latter wanted the refractive index of methyl cyanoacrylate in 1948. They put a drop on the bottom glass prism of an Abbe refractometer and squeezed the top prism down. That permanently ruined an adequately expensive piece of equipment. What you make of observation is all important! In a proper world they would have been discharged for cause. Eastman, lacking professional management where it counted, made SuperGlue. -- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

 Related Discussions General Physics 3 Cosmology 4 General Physics 0 Quantum Physics 5 General Discussion 38