- #1

- 10

- 0

## Main Question or Discussion Point

I've published a paper on local hidden variables with surprising consequences for Bells Theorem. It is available on https://doi.org/10.1515/phys-2017-0106 The journal Open Physics is listed in T/R.

To the background of Bell's argument, the following comments: Since Bell published his theorem for the proof of distant action more than 50 years ago, no one has yet provided a proof of how this remote effect actually takes place.

What's wrong with Bell's argument?

Bell had argued that if nature allowed only local effects, the results of polarization measurements would only depend on polarizer position and a possible hidden parameter. He then concluded that the expectation values of different measurements must be in a certain context, namely, that they followed Bell's inequality. If, as often measured, nature violates Bell's inequality, then, according to Bell, it can not be based on local effects.

Bell has argued imprecisely. His theorem is valid only if the dependency of the polarization measurement results on polarizer position and hidden parameter is the only one possible. If other models are possible, which correctly predict the measured expectation values with entangled photon pairs, his theorem loses its generality. Bell has thus failed to prove the universality. A counter-example suffices to refute his theorem. I presented such a counterexample. The measurement results also depend on the polarization of the incoming photons.

To the background of Bell's argument, the following comments: Since Bell published his theorem for the proof of distant action more than 50 years ago, no one has yet provided a proof of how this remote effect actually takes place.

What's wrong with Bell's argument?

Bell had argued that if nature allowed only local effects, the results of polarization measurements would only depend on polarizer position and a possible hidden parameter. He then concluded that the expectation values of different measurements must be in a certain context, namely, that they followed Bell's inequality. If, as often measured, nature violates Bell's inequality, then, according to Bell, it can not be based on local effects.

Bell has argued imprecisely. His theorem is valid only if the dependency of the polarization measurement results on polarizer position and hidden parameter is the only one possible. If other models are possible, which correctly predict the measured expectation values with entangled photon pairs, his theorem loses its generality. Bell has thus failed to prove the universality. A counter-example suffices to refute his theorem. I presented such a counterexample. The measurement results also depend on the polarization of the incoming photons.

Last edited: