Is this article for real?

  • B
  • Thread starter Collin237
  • Start date
  • #1
58
6

Summary:

This guy claims to have obviated the Bell inequality. What did he do wrong to get this result?

Main Question or Discussion Point

This is in reference to the following essay: https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/20/11/877

He's talking about laboratory techniques, which I don't know about. But it sounds like he's saying that the Bell violation comes from the necessity to select the most likely pairing of the two detection sequences.

My gut reaction is that this reminds me of an article in Analog where someone said that global warming is an illusion caused by the use of a new kind of bulb in lamps commonly found near climate lab thermometers. (ROTFL)

Is this article similarly idiotic? Or does it reflect any actual concern about the experiments?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
zonde
Gold Member
2,941
213
As I understand, in this article apparent violation of Bell's inequalities is attributed to coincidence-time loophole.
In latest experiments coincidence-time loophole is closed. Experimenters are using pulsed pump lasers so that downconverted photons are generated at certain time windows determined by pump laser pulses. So they use these pump pulses to set coincidence widows rather than photon detections or measurement settings.

So the concern raised in the article is not idiotic, but it has been taken care of and it seems that the author has not investigated latest experiments carefully enough.

Another thing is that there are Bell inequality derivations that do not relay on any LHV model, stochastic, deterministic, contextual or non-contextual. One rather informal counter example type "proof" is here and another formal Eberhard's proof is reproduced here (original is behind paywall). These proofs do not address coincidence-time loophole, but they might be used to counter other arguments used in this article.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #3
berkeman
Mentor
57,517
7,536
Thread closed for Moderation...
 
  • #4
berkeman
Mentor
57,517
7,536
Good reply by @zonde -- thanks.

@Collin237 -- the reference you linked to is not acceptable. We don't discuss or debunk articles in non-reputable journals.

After a Mentor discussion, this thread will remain closed.
 

Related Threads on Is this article for real?

Replies
12
Views
739
Replies
1
Views
575
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
0
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
862
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
1K
Top