The photon identification loophole in EPRB experiments

Foundations of physics and/or philosophy of physics, and in particular, posts on unresolved or controversial issues

The photon identification loophole in EPRB experiments

Postby minkwe » Thu Nov 09, 2017 12:00 pm

H. De Raedt, K. Michielsen, K. Hess
https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.08307

Recent Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm experiments [M. Giustina et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 250401 (2015); L. K. Shalm et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 250402 (2015)] that claim to be loophole free are scrutinized and are shown to suffer a photon identification loophole. The combination of a digital computer and discrete-event simulation is used to construct a minimal but faithful model of the most perfected realization of these laboratory experiments. In contrast to prior simulations, all photon selections are strictly made, as they are in the actual experiments, at the local station and no other "post-selection" is involved. The simulation results demonstrate that a manifestly non-quantum model that identifies photons in the same local manner as in these experiments can produce correlations that are in excellent agreement with those of the quantum theoretical description of the corresponding thought experiment, in conflict with Bell's theorem. The failure of Bell's theorem is possible because of our recognition of the photon identification loophole. Such identification measurement-procedures are necessarily included in all actual experiments but are not included in the theory of Bell and his followers.
minkwe
 
Posts: 977
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 9:22 am

Re: The photon identification loophole in EPRB experiments:

Postby FrediFizzx » Fri Nov 10, 2017 9:16 am

minkwe wrote:H. De Raedt, K. Michielsen, K. Hess
https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.08307

Recent Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm experiments [M. Giustina et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 250401 (2015); L. K. Shalm et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 250402 (2015)] that claim to be loophole free are scrutinized and are shown to suffer a photon identification loophole. The combination of a digital computer and discrete-event simulation is used to construct a minimal but faithful model of the most perfected realization of these laboratory experiments. In contrast to prior simulations, all photon selections are strictly made, as they are in the actual experiments, at the local station and no other "post-selection" is involved. The simulation results demonstrate that a manifestly non-quantum model that identifies photons in the same local manner as in these experiments can produce correlations that are in excellent agreement with those of the quantum theoretical description of the corresponding thought experiment, in conflict with Bell's theorem. The failure of Bell's theorem is possible because of our recognition of the photon identification loophole. Such identification measurement-procedures are necessarily included in all actual experiments but are not included in the theory of Bell and his followers.

I think they are barking up the wrong tree. As soon as you say "loophole" then you are expecting that the experiments don't truly validate the predictions of quantum mechanics. Since we know that Bell's theory is simply due to a mathematical trick, then there are probably not any real loopholes at all and the predictions of QM are correct. One big problem is that people expect Nature to behave a certain way in a classical sense but QM itself is a big clue that Nature doesn't necessarily behave that way even in the classical sense.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1154
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:12 pm
Location: California, USA

Re: The photon identification loophole in EPRB experiments:

Postby minkwe » Fri Nov 10, 2017 10:38 am

FrediFizzx wrote:I think they are barking up the wrong tree. As soon as you say "loophole" then you are expecting that the experiments don't truly validate the predictions of quantum mechanics.

On the contrary Fred, they say explicitly that they reproduced the experimental results in full agreement with QM through an event by event simulation without using any QM concepts. So the point is not that QM is incorrect but rather that there is nothing mystical in the QM predictions/experimental results.

Since we know that Bell's theory is simply due to a mathematical trick, then there are probably not any real loopholes at all and the predictions of QM are correct.

I agree partially. I say partially because I don't agree that it is a mathematical "trick" (as in a conniving magician who knows what they are doing). I think it is a mathematical "error" (due to ignorance or incompetence). Also, I think there are loopholes -- in the logic of Bell's theorem, and in the logic of all those making mystical claims on the basis of it. It is not a loophole in the experiment but in the interpretation of the implications of the results.

One big problem is that people expect Nature to behave a certain way in a classical sense but QM itself is a big clue that Nature doesn't necessarily behave that way even in the classical sense.

You are right. What you describe is a symptom of a bigger problem IMHO: The "mind projection fallacy". There is nothing wrong with nature behaving as we expect, so long as we are using sound reasoning. In fact, if nature behaves differently than you expect, then your logic is suspect and you need to identify the error in it. The problem nowadays is that most people in the field do not re-evaluate their logic. They simply shrug and say "nature is weird" and then they invent alternate logic or mystical explanations.
minkwe
 
Posts: 977
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 9:22 am

Re: The photon identification loophole in EPRB experiments

Postby FrediFizzx » Fri Nov 10, 2017 12:04 pm

You are right. I misread their intention in the paper possibly due to, "The failure of Bell’s theorem is possible because of our recognition of the photon identification loophole."

I'm OK with "error" instead of "trick". But you would think some of these people should know better and if they do, then it is a "trick".
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1154
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:12 pm
Location: California, USA


Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library