A recent article in the Physical Review A – see reference 1. below - appears to be the first editorial exception to the fanatic protection of the concept of quantum nonlocality.
Could anyone - after reading all six articles listed below - still support the physically meaningless concept of quantum non-locality? The experimental results indicate conventional statistical distributions of joint or simultaneous detections of two sets of random binary outcomes.
1. Robert B. Griffiths, “Nonlocality claims are inconsistent with Hilbert-space quantum mechanics”, Phys. Rev. A 101, 022117 – Published 28 February 2020.
2. F. J. Tipler, "Quantum nonlocality does not exist", PNAS 111 (31), 11281-11286, August 5, 2014; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1324238111.
3. A. Vatarescu, “The Scattering and Disappearance of Entangled Photons in a Homogeneous Dielectric Medium,” Rochester Conference on Coherence and Quantum Optics (CQO-11), doi.org/10.1364/CQO.2019.M5A.19.
4. S. Boughn, “Making Sense of Bell’s Theorem and Quantum Nonlocality”, Foundations of Physics 47, 640-657 (2017)
5. Andrei Khrennikov, “Get Rid of Nonlocality from Quantum Physics “, Entropy 2019, 21, 806
6. Marian Kupczynski, “Closing the Door on Quantum Nonlocality “, Entropy 2018, 20, 877
Ilija Barukcic - Jever - Germany. 28.9.2020
Subject
Isn’t quantum non-locality already meaningless?
Dear Andre X Vatarescu,
Please find my answer attached as a pdf file.
Best
Ilija
Hi Ilija, We are on the same page!
The 2020 paper by R,. Griffiths challenging quantum nonlocality is the first published in the Physical Review A. It seem to be a breach in the fanatic defence of many careers in quantum physics. I do intend to engage in a new campaign of compelling the supporters of quantum nonlocality to either explain the physical process underpinning the claim, or admit their failure to do so. Every review paper on quantum nonlocality fails to address the many and varied rebuttals of the quantum nonlocality.
I have some experimental results posted on Research Gate in a preprint, "Anomalous Photon Interference," which seems to demonstrate that there is a broader photon field or wave responsible for the interference in slit, double slit, and post interference, by isolating photons to only one of the possible paths but allowing the wave both paths. In two other experimental results posted on Research Gate as preprints "Separate Paths Photon Interferometry" and Experimental Determination of Photon Interference Point" it is demonstrated that the interference pattern is developed in the near field rather than at the final point of detection. This of course seems to refute the Niels Bohr Interpretation of double slit interference in which the interference pattern is formed by the convergence of the multiple, probable paths at the detection point and which was dependent on the introduction of the concept of non-locality.
Thank you Barry Fleagle for your contribution.
It sounds to me like the optical field spatial distribution which appears in a recent submission to the 2020 OSA Frontiers in Optics titled "Optical illusions of single-photon measurements" that I couldn't present online and I'm not sure whether it was included in the proceedings. But a copy is available on ResearchGate.
My main goal was, however, to do with the Bell-type nonlocality which is physically highly questionable because the same correlation function can be derived for single and independent qubits of polarization as is commonly done for entangled qubits. The latter are destroyed by the quantum Rayleigh scattering through spontaneous emission in the case of a single photon per radiation mode. There is a submission titled "The Scattering and Disappearance of Entangled Photons in a Homogeneous Dielectric Medium,” Rochester Conference on Coherence and Quantum Optics (CQO-11), doi.org/10.1364/CQO.2019.M5A.19.