http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.5290v2.pdf(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

I'll just highlight some stuff

"

"We submit: Doesn’t quantum theory itself, which is a local

theory, account for its own predictions?

As the authors of this quote know very well, experi-

mental data contradict Bell’s theorem [22,23], which im-

plies that — as a statement about physical systems — the

theorem is wrong.

Since there is no error in the reason-

ing that establishes the theorem from its assumptions, the

flaw must be in the assumptions. Specifically, it is the as-

sumption that a mechanism exists that determines which

detector will click for the next photon registered by an

apparatus of the kind depicted in Fig. 1. There is no such

deterministic mechanism — quantum processes are fun-

damentally probabilistic, events are randomly realized —

and the violation of Bell’s theorem by actual data confirms

that.

...........

Find-

ings of an inadequate nonquantum formalism are irrele-

vant for quantum physics. If the findings are at variance

with the experimental data, as is the case here, we are

reminded of the inappropriateness of the reasoning. It fol-

lows that common sense of that sort does not apply in the

quantum realm.

Rather disturbingly, though, it has become acceptable

to turn the argument into its opposite. It is taken for

granted that quantum physics

should

obey such common

sense, but then that inadequate nonquantum formalism

needs nonlocal features — or so it seems."

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Arxiv: No Bell, no collapse, no spooky, no nonlocality

Loading...

Similar Threads - Arxiv Bell collapse | Date |
---|---|

I Bell's Theorem and Reality | Feb 13, 2018 |

I Is Bell's Theorem correct? | Jan 21, 2018 |

B Understanding Bell’s inequality | Jan 6, 2018 |

Quantum Imaging with Undetected Photons arXiv:1401.4318(quant phy) | Oct 13, 2014 |

Question: Quantum Two Time interpretation - arXiv article from Aharonov, et al. | Aug 1, 2005 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**