I Bell-type Polarization Exp: Uncorrelated Photon Pairs & End of Nonlocality?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter vortextor
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Experiment
vortextor
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
TL;DR Summary
A very interesting Bell-type experiment using uncorrelated photons
A very interesting experiment:
Bell-type Polarization Experiment With Pairs Of Uncorrelated Optical Photons
M. Iannuzzi, et al.
in arXiv:2002.02723 [quant-ph] or Physics Letters A 384 (2020) 126200
The autor(s) conclude:
"We may therefore understand that the measurement precedure adopted in the Bell-type experiments yields the polarization relation between the two members of a pair, either entangled or not entangled, in their finalpreparation state.
In particular, for either quantum or classical physical systems, sinusoidal correlations relation of p12(a, b) substituited into the CH inequality, may cause its violation. Consequently we believe that the CH inequality will be conclusively tested only by relating it to Bell-type experiments with an analysing instrument and a final state-preparation instrument that do not coincide."
This seems to be very strange. This is the end of the "nonlocality" paradigm?
 
  • Skeptical
Likes Demystifier
Physics news on Phys.org
As far as I can see, this experiment claims violation of Bell-type inequalities without entanglement. This is in contradiction with the predictions of quantum mechanics. I am very skeptical.
 
  • Like
Likes vortextor
If i understand their work correctly, they are claming a variation of Bertlmann's socks. Wasn't this disproved mathematically by John Bell in 1981?
 
Last edited:
The number of issues with this manuscript is very long. Just to start with, the photon bunching they see is not expected for two independent lasers, unless they are filtered strongly. In that case they become quasithermal light sources.
Along the same lines, they use two lasers instead of entangled photon pairs, but do not consider the Poissonian (or Bose-Einstein-like for quasithermal light) photon number distribution lasers show. So there are no photon pairs arriving, but strongly varying numbers of photons. This of course needs to be taken into account in a correct analysis and if I remember correctly, the derivation of the CH-inequality assumes exact photon pair states and not sometimes 2 photons, sometimes just 1 and sometimes 7.
 
  • Like
Likes vortextor, msumm21, mattt and 1 other person
I would like to know the validity of the following criticism of one of Zeilinger's latest papers https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.07756 "violation of bell inequality with unentangled photons" The review is by Francis Villatoro, in Spanish, https://francis.naukas.com/2025/07/26/sin-entrelazamiento-no-se-pueden-incumplir-las-desigualdades-de-bell/ I will translate and summarize the criticism as follows: -It is true that a Bell inequality is violated, but not a CHSH inequality. The...
I understand that the world of interpretations of quantum mechanics is very complex, as experimental data hasn't completely falsified the main deterministic interpretations (such as Everett), vs non-deterministc ones, however, I read in online sources that Objective Collapse theories are being increasingly challenged. Does this mean that deterministic interpretations are more likely to be true? I always understood that the "collapse" or "measurement problem" was how we phrased the fact that...
This is not, strictly speaking, a discussion of interpretations per se. We often see discussions based on QM as it was understood during the early days and the famous Einstein-Bohr debates. The problem with this is that things in QM have advanced tremendously since then, and the 'weirdness' that puzzles those attempting to understand QM has changed. I recently came across a synopsis of these advances, allowing those interested in interpretational issues to understand the modern view...
Back
Top