by Esail » Fri Apr 20, 2018 1:38 am
In his 1964 paper Bell has established a theorem named by him which says: „In a theory in which parameters are added to quantum mechanics to determine the results of individual measurements, without changing the statistical predictions, there must be a mechanism whereby the setting of one measuring device can influence the reading of another instrument, however remote. Moreover, the signal involved must propagate instantaneously, so that such a theory could not be Lorentz invariant.” This is what Einstein called „spooky“.
Bell’s theorem is refuted by presenting a counterexample on
https://doi.org/10.1515/phys-2017-0106 It is strictly local in Einstein’s sense and correctly predicts the measurement results in accordance with QM. Measurement results at either side of the experiment are predetermined by a common parameter but the correlation between the results depends on the setting of the polarizers. This is in contrast to counterfactual definiteness assumed by Bell.
In his 1964 paper Bell has established a theorem named by him which says: „In a theory in which parameters are added to quantum mechanics to determine the results of individual measurements, without changing the statistical predictions, there must be a mechanism whereby the setting of one measuring device can influence the reading of another instrument, however remote. Moreover, the signal involved must propagate instantaneously, so that such a theory could not be Lorentz invariant.” This is what Einstein called „spooky“.
Bell’s theorem is refuted by presenting a counterexample on https://doi.org/10.1515/phys-2017-0106 It is strictly local in Einstein’s sense and correctly predicts the measurement results in accordance with QM. Measurement results at either side of the experiment are predetermined by a common parameter but the correlation between the results depends on the setting of the polarizers. This is in contrast to counterfactual definiteness assumed by Bell.