Since Bell published his theorem for the proof of distant action more than 50 years ago, no one has yet provided a proof of how this remote effect actually takes place.
What could be wrong with Bell's argument?
Bell had argued that if nature allowed only local effects, the results of polarization measurements would only depend on polarizer position and a possible hidden parameter. He then concluded that the expectation values of different measurements must be in a certain context, namely, that they followed Bell's inequality. If, as often measured, nature violates Bell's inequality, then, according to Bell, it can not be based on local effects.
Bell has argued imprecisely. His theorem is valid only if the dependency of the polarization measurement results on polarizer position and hidden parameter is the only one possible. If other models are possible, which correctly predict the measured expectation values with entangled photon pairs, his theorem loses its generality. Bell has thus failed to prove the universality. A counter-example suffices to refute his theorem. I presented such a counterexample. It is available on https://goo.gl/K1vjCy
The measurement results also depend on the polarization of the incoming photons.
As I wrote above, one counterexample suffices to refute Bell's theorem. The model only has to be local and it must correctly predict the expectation values of polarization measurements with entangled photons.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Correction