# Is Bell's Theorem correct?

• I
For me, as I see it, the model breaks down at assumption 5. This assumption is written in to agree with experimental results. But it explicitly states that B is a function of gamma. Given that gamma is dependent on the orientation of P1 this implies that B depends on said orientation. This is a non local influence. I can’t see how you can get round it.
B and A are local definitions as lambda and delta are local. A(delta, lambda) is defined by equations 2-5. Using M5 B(delta, lambda) is defined by equations 8-11.
Photon 1 and photon 2 of a pair share the same lambda.

Fra
B and A are local definitions as lambda and delta are local. A(delta, lambda) is defined by equations 2-5. Using M5 B(delta, lambda) is defined by equations 8-11.
Photon 1 and photon 2 of a pair share the same lambda.
One locality part in the "local realism" premise of the theorem is that the choice of measurement setting made at A should be independent from B. The fact that the theorem makes a prediction for the case where there happens to be a certain relation between a and b and you have perfect anti-correlation, does not mean that this relation must be confused with a dependence.

As far as I can see from what you did, it seems to me that you tried to transform away the a and b, by delta which is is determined by a and gamma, OR by b and gamma, thus you have two different deltas, dont you?
$$\delta_a = w(a,\lambda)$$
$$\delta_b = v(b,\lambda)$$
So what you should have at this point is
$$A=f(\delta_a, \lambda)= f(\delta_a, w(a,\lambda)) = f'(a,\lambda)$$
$$B=g(\delta_b, \lambda)= g(\delta_b, w(b,\lambda)) = g'(b,\lambda)$$
So far, all you did was a change of variables, but you still are stuck in the original form.

Now the premise of the theorem is that a and b are independent. In your case you seem to inappropriate link them together so that the "accidental case where the free choices conincide" becomes forced in your case. This is also why you have dependence between delta_a and delta_b.

This effectively means that you have,
$$A= f'(a,\lambda)$$
$$B= g''(a,\lambda)$$
So IMO what you did is replace the premises that normally consistutes what is "local realism".

I think is somewhat disguised with your mixing in the \delta, though. This is is the reason why i tried to note the general form in the other post to see the big picture before the details. Perhaps i got something wrong in your paper?

/Fredrik

Stavros Kiri
DrChinese
Gold Member
Can you please explain what you mean with H and V? In the coordinate system used in my paper H is 0° and V is 90° defined by the H and V outputs of the source. This is arbitrary but fixed. So we could have a polarizer settings 0°/90°, 120°/210°, 240°/330°. for P1 and P2 respectively. These were used in the calculations.
The output of your splitter is H or V. It can be aligned anywhere across 360 degrees.

The issue is for you to tell me what the output values would be for the 3 angle setting for each photon, each run. That's 6 H or V answers per run. If you feel more comfortable using 0°/90°, 120°/210°, 240°/330° for P1 and P2 respectively - thus inverting mismatches to matches when comparing - that's fine. The objective here is to have the perfect correlations be obvious. So 0°/90°for P1 and P2 respectively will always be a match.

DrChinese
Gold Member
1, Can we agree upon photon 2 and photon 1 being connected by a time stamp of a coincidence measuring device as I've assumed in section 2 of my paper?
That means the experimental results consist of a list
setting P1; result P1 (=1); setting P2; result P2(=1 or 0).

2. If that is so it is possible to construct algorithms to predict these results.
1. Sure, the pairs can be matched.
2. That's what I understood. I just want to see that in action.

bhobba
Mentor
In order to understand the phenomenon we can not use the formalism of QM. It doesn't tell us anything about temporal sequences. Only sound physical reasoning helps.
Seriously are you saying analysis of QM problems via QM is invalid. These experiments are QM problems. Just think about that for a moment - cant you see how contradictory it is. I have zero idea what you mean by QM doesn't tell you about temporal sequences - exactly what does QM have in its formalism that does not allow it to analyse sequences? Sound physical reasoning - sounds a lot like physics must be about reality. Trouble is in physics I think most would say the formalism is the reality - you can interpret it in all sorts of ways and that's fine, but without experimental verification they are just conjectures - more mental cruxes and aids in understanding the formalism than anything.

Thanks
Bill

Dale
Mentor
With that, it is time to close this thread. The paper has been adequately reviewed and the discussion is now veering away from established science.

I remind the OP in particular, that all posts on PF must be consistent with the professional scientific literature. The formalism of QM most assuredly can be used here!

Doc Al, DrChinese and bhobba