I New Nobel Aspect contradicts himself on action at a distance bel

[RayTomes]

TL;DR

Alain Aspect got a physics Nobel for his experiment to non-local behaviour of quantum mechanics but his own statements prove he should not have.

Alain Aspect got a Noble Physics prize for experiments with entangled photons, establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science. According to this article https://phys.org/news/2022-10-quantum-entanglement-spooky-science-physics.html
Aspect is quoted as saying "non-locality does not allow you to send a useful message faster than light".

If you cannot send a message faster than light (and I believe that this is correct) then there is no non-locality, it is that simple. If that quote is correct then there is no non-locality. There is nothing spooky. Well what happened then? The following explains but does not alter the fact that Aspect admitted there is no non-locality.

In my opinion and that of several other statisticians the issue is the failure of many physicists to understand statistics, in particular the difference between a sample and a sub sample. Once that is understood, I can easily get the Bell's inequality using classical physics.

What is a sample? It might be all the photons emitted by some apparatus.

What is a sub-sample? It might be all the photons detected by another apparatus.

You cannot assume that the sub sample has the same characteristics as the sample. Even if you have a wonderful detector. The probability of detection is strongly affected by the angle of the polarizer detector. The angle between the two detectors strongly influences the correlation between the sub samples.

Ray Tomes

 

[Nugatory]

You cannot assume that the sub sample has the same characteristics as the sample.

This is the long-known fair sampling loophole, and that assumption is a well-recognized weakness of most experiments that use photon polarization as the relevant entangled property.

It has been decisively closed by experiments in which there is no sampling: every entangled pair is measured and counted. Give me a while and I’ll dig up the paper, or someone else will post it while I’m looking.

 

[Nugatory]

Here are two: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1508.05949v1.pdf and https://arxiv.org/abs/1511.03189

As this thread is based on a misunderstanding of the experiments that have been done we can close it. As with all thread closures we can reopen the thread if there is more to say - but be aware that a lot more has already been said in our earlier threads discussing these experiments.