Understanding Bell Theorem: A Noob's Perspective

[iamcj]

Delay relative to what? I thought you were saying that the delay was relative to \alpha = 0^o.

You can't have the delay depend on the difference between Alice's setting and Bob's setting, because Alice and Bob are far away from each other. The photon can't know both settings.

For a local model, Alice's result must depend only on Alice's setting, and Bob's result must depend only on Bob's setting. If the result depends on the difference between their settings, then that is a nonlocal quantity.

The photons are entangled so they flip their polarity 180 degrees (or some other thing that determins if they go trough or not) at the same time no matter where they are. They are in sync so to say.

Lets say they both have a polarity of 0 degrees. The photon that goes trough the 0 filter takes no time to polarize. To polairize a photon to 120 or -120 (240) degrees takes 3 time units. So 3 time units later is decided if the photon (BOB) goes trough or not. Thats what makes the 25%.

Between 0 and 120, 0 and -120 (240) and 120 and 240 is always 120 degrees, 3 time units.

Can you please give me QM prediction for other angels (60 and 120 for example), maybe I can make it clear then?

 

[stevendaryl]

The photons are entangled so they flip their polarity 180 degrees (or some other thing that determins if they go trough or not) at the same time no matter where they are. They are in sync so to say.

Yes, you already said that.

Lets say they both have a polarity of 0 degrees. The photon that goes trough the 0 filter takes no time to polarize. To polairize a photon to 120 or -120 (240) degrees takes 3 time units. So 3 time units later is decided if the photon goes trough or not. Thats what makes the 25%.
Between 0 and 120, 0 and -120 (240) and 120 and 240 is always 120 degrees, 3 time units.

Yes, you already said all of that.

Let's take an example where the photon has polarity 0^o. Then if Alice and Bob both choose setting 0^o, they will both measure +1. So far, so good. But now, if Alice chooses 120^o, she'll get a trough, and so will measure -1. If Bob chooses 240^o, then he'll get a trough, so he will measure -1. So, in the case where the photon has polarity 0^o, BOTH Alice and Bob will measure -1.

 

[iamcj]

Yes, you already said that.
Yes, you already said all of that.

Let's take an example where the photon has polarity 0^o. Then if Alice and Bob both choose setting 0^o, they will both measure +1. So far, so good. But now, if Alice chooses 120^o, she'll get a trough, and so will measure -1. If Bob chooses 240^o, then he'll get a trough, so he will measure -1. So, in the case where the photon has polarity 0^o, BOTH Alice and Bob will measure -1.

, you are right and I've read that's always 25% 75% no matter the angle. I will give it one more try

 

[stevendaryl]

If you think you have a model that works, you should be able to construct a table where the rows represent different runs of the experiment, and each row has 6 values:

1. The result (\pm 1) that Alice would have gotten on that run, if she chose orientation 0^o
2. The result that Alice would have gotten on that run, if she had chosen orientation 120^o
3. The result that Alice would have gotten on that run, if she had chosenorientation 240^o
4. The result that Bob would have gotten on that run, if he had chosenorientation 0^o
5. The result that Bob would have gotten on that run, if he had chosenorientation 120^o
6. The result that Bob would have gotten on that run, if he had chosenorientation 240^o

To agree with QM, it must be that

• the result in column 1 always agrees with the result in column 4,
• the result in column 2 always agrees with the result in column 5,
• the result in column 3 always agrees with the result in column 6.
  
• 75% of the time, the result in column 1 DISAGREES with the result in column 5
• 75% of the time, the result in column 1 disagrees with the result in column 6.
• 75% of the time, the result in column 2 disagrees with the result in column 4
  
• 75% of the time, the result in column 2 disagrees with the result in column 6
• 75% of the time, the result in column 3 disagrees with the result in column 4
• 75% of the time, the result in column 3 disagrees with the result in column 5

 

[jfizzix]

I am just a noob, trying to understand.

I suspect the use of the Bell theorem is wrong. Ik think there is only one hidden variable and not 3 or more. That variable is time. A particle is in motion and has a position, depending on time. When two particles are entangled they have the same position in time. When a particle hits something, time in combination with position decides if the particle goes trough or not, gets absorbed or not. So it’s always a 50% ballgame and gives a 50% * 50% = 25% result not 33%.

Thanks in advance for your replies.

Local hidden variables is a catch-all term for any thing or things existing that could have affected the measurement outcomes of a separated pair of particles A and B, provided the influence of such things propagates at or below some finite speed (taken to be the speed of light).

If the measurement statistics of A and B can be described by a model of local hidden variables, then John Bell showed that those statistics must satisfy a mathematical inequality, what we call today a Bell inequality.

Bell also showed that when the state describing A and B is one of the four maximally entangled "Bell" states, then the resulting measurements are predicted to actually violate a Bell inequality.

More recently, experiments have been performed which show, that yes, Bell inequalities do seem to be violated.

What that means is debatable, but what we can say, is that if a pair of particles' measurements violate a Bell inequality, then their measurement correlations cannot be explained by influences traveling at or below the speed of light. As a consequence, we might say that the correlations simply have no explanation (a non-realist view), or that the correlations are explained by faster-than light influences.

No one really knows yet, but lots of good work is being done on the subject.