- #1

- 207

- 14

- TL;DR Summary
- The model used to refute Bell's theorem in a recent paper doesn't seem to be consistent with QM

I’m looking over a recent paper mentioned in another thread. It claims to refute Bell’s theorem. At first glance, the model presented in the paper doesn’t appear consistent with QM. Here’s a simple example.

Suppose we set both polarizers to the same angle ##\alpha = \pi /4##. In the model presented, A=1 (photon 1 passes its polarizer) when ##\lambda \leq \cos^2(\pi/4-\varphi_1)##, and B=1 when ##\lambda \leq \cos^2(\pi/4-\varphi_2)##. Using the initial condition ##\varphi_1=0,\varphi_2=\pi/2## as in the examples in the paper both inequalities reduce to ##\lambda \leq 0.5##. So the two photons yield the same result when measured about the same axis. As shown in the paper around Eqn 8, they also give the same result when measured about orthogonal axes.

So it seems this model is not consistent with QM (or I made an arithmetic error).

Suppose we set both polarizers to the same angle ##\alpha = \pi /4##. In the model presented, A=1 (photon 1 passes its polarizer) when ##\lambda \leq \cos^2(\pi/4-\varphi_1)##, and B=1 when ##\lambda \leq \cos^2(\pi/4-\varphi_2)##. Using the initial condition ##\varphi_1=0,\varphi_2=\pi/2## as in the examples in the paper both inequalities reduce to ##\lambda \leq 0.5##. So the two photons yield the same result when measured about the same axis. As shown in the paper around Eqn 8, they also give the same result when measured about orthogonal axes.

So it seems this model is not consistent with QM (or I made an arithmetic error).