Is this article's reliability questionable?

  • B
  • Thread starter Collin237
  • Start date
  • Tags
    article
In summary, the conversation discusses an article that raises concerns about the apparent violation of Bell's inequalities in laboratory experiments. However, these concerns have been addressed in recent experiments by closing the coincidence-time loophole. The article's concerns are not considered idiotic, but the author may not have been aware of the latest experiments. Additionally, there are Bell inequality derivations that do not rely on any LHV models, which could potentially counter other arguments presented in the article. The thread has been closed for moderation due to a reference to a non-reputable journal.
  • #1
Collin237
58
6
TL;DR Summary
This guy claims to have obviated the Bell inequality. What did he do wrong to get this result?
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?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
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
Thread closed for Moderation...
 
  • #4
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.
 

1. Is the information in this article accurate?

As a scientist, I cannot determine the accuracy of a specific article without thoroughly reviewing the sources and evidence presented. It is always important to critically evaluate information and consider the credibility of the source before accepting it as fact.

2. How can I tell if an article is legitimate?

Legitimate articles should have reliable sources cited and be written by experts in the field. It is also important to check for bias or misleading information. Peer-reviewed articles published in reputable journals are typically considered more legitimate.

3. Is this article based on scientific research?

It is important to check the sources and references cited in the article to determine if it is based on scientific research. Articles that are based on scientific research should have evidence and data to support their claims.

4. Can I trust the information in this article?

As a scientist, it is always important to critically evaluate information and consider the credibility of the source before accepting it as fact. It is also helpful to cross-reference the information with other reputable sources to ensure accuracy.

5. What should I do if I am unsure about the validity of an article?

If you are unsure about the validity of an article, it is always best to do further research and consult with experts in the field. You can also check for retractions or corrections issued by the publisher or contact the author for more information.

Similar threads

I To rejuvenate the plausibility of stochastic mechanics
    • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
1
Views
515
How reliable are peer reviewed scientific articles?
    • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
7K
Synthetic Biology, What Might It Do?
    • Biology and Medical
Replies
1
Views
1K
B QFT & QM Questions (about time, locality, gravity, etc.)
    • Quantum Physics
Replies
6
Views
1K
Model CO2 as Greenhouse Gas: Tips & Results
    • Earth Sciences
6
Replies
186
Views
74K
Scientists try new ways to predict climate risks
    • Earth Sciences
Replies
2
Views
3K
Global Dimming, Less Light Reaching Us
    • Optics
Replies
1
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top