"Bell's theorem refuted" now published by EPL

[Esail]

Thanks to your response to my comment, I finally uderstood why you say your model is local.
You chose different particles according to what setting is chosen. That is not "contextuality" and is not how you test locality

In an entangled particle system, there are no discrete particles with a defined polarization. Otherwise the system would be separable, which it is not. Through a selection, however, a particle flow with identical polarization is selected. This is due to the indistinguishability of entangled photons, which also cannot be distinguished by their polarization. Selection alpha means selecting all photons which would pass a polarizer set to alpha. Selecting from the initial context comprises all generated photons with polarization 0° in the range 0<lambda<cos**2(alpha) and photons with polarization 90° in the range cos**2(alpha) <lambda<1.

In QM terms a selection by a polarizer is equivalent to a projection onto the polarizer direction. It is well known that a projection from a singlet state onto a polarizer direction alpha at one side leaves the system on the other side in a state with polarization alpha+pi/2. The question was for a long time if this is due to instantaneous interaction or to hidden variables. After my model there is strong evidence the latter is the case.

The problem then seems to be your concept of "locality". Locality means: what an experimenter decides to do in a far away laboratory cannot change the result of what I decide to measure here when the measuring events are spacelike separated. That is the simple and clear meaning of locality and is what your model clearly violates as I showed in my comment and everyone has tried to explain to you.
I does not matter how you try to explain that; it is a nonlocal effect and will continue to be a nonlocal effect unless your change the concept of locality.

Justo: Every single argument of your Comment has been rebutted in my Reply.

No one who has participated in the discussion so far has been able to provide evidence that any sentence in my paper is wrong.

Here I repeat what I wrote in my reply and then I end my participation in this discussion. Thank you all for your contributions.

In short we repeat the proof here partially. Referring to the initial state we chose the set up PA,PB = alpha, pi/2 with an initial photon polarization phi1, phi2 = 0, pi/2. On side A we have delta1 = alpha-0° =alpha and for this A(alpha,lambda) = 1 for 0 < lambda < cos**2(alpha). Assuming a polarizer setting PB of alpha+pi/2 we would get delta2 = alpha+ pi/2 - pi2 = alpha and B(alpha,lambda) = 1 as well for 0 < lambda < cos**2(alpha). This is local as we get the same values for A and B just because of the same arguments and not because of communication between them. So I do not have to change my concept of locality. It is strictly in accordance with Einstein's. Note that orthogonal polarizer setting is a condition for the certainty of matching events and not stipulating the experimenter. Due to MA3 the polarization of the thus selected photon 1 and photon 2 are alpha and alpha+pi/2 respectively.

[gill1109]

Eugen, a number of your sentences mean absolutely nothing to me. I just cannot figure out what you are trying to say. Maybe you should write in German, I can read that. Anyway, if you want to convince anybody, I suggest you use mathematics. Tell us your expressions for A(a, lambda) and for B(b, lambda) and tell us the probability distribution of lambda. If you can do that, we don’t even have to check your maths. We can just do a computer simulation. Or, are you telling us that you do not have functions A(a, lambda) and B(b, lambda)? Instead, do you have A(a, b, lambda) and B(a, b, lambda)? Give us formulas. You claim that what you are doing would be thought of as “local” by Einstein.

Well, the words do not matter. The math matters. Please write down an explicit mathematical model. Then we can discuss its properties. And whether it can describe the latest experiments.

[Justo]

Eugen, a number of your sentences mean absolutely nothing to me. I just cannot figure out what you are trying to say. Maybe you should write in German, I can read that. Anyway, if you want to convince anybody, I suggest you use mathematics. Tell us your expressions for A(a, lambda) and for B(b, lambda) and tell us the probability distribution of lambda. If you can do that, we don’t even have to check your maths. We can just do a computer simulation. Or, are you telling us that you do not have functions A(a, lambda) and B(b, lambda)? Instead, do you have A(a, b, lambda) and B(a, b, lambda)? Give us formulas. You claim that what you are doing would be thought of as “local” by Einstein.

Well, the words do not matter. The math matters. Please write down an explicit mathematical model. Then we can discuss its properties. And whether it can describe the latest experiments.

He has functions A(a,b,lambda), which is clear and explicit from this paper. As I showed by a concrete example this leads to nonlocal effects(of course, we all know this). In the response to my comment, he says that having A(a,b,lambda) does not imply nonlocality.
In my example, I show the nonlocal effect by proving how a local change in Alice's choice of measurement produces a change in Bob's result. That constitutes the objective proof of Eugen's model nonlocality.
He explains in his response that by changing Alice's setting we change the particle pair that is being measured. That is right, we can avoid nonlocality by selecting different pairs of "entangled" particles according to the experimental settings. But, by doing so, we are not testing the concept of locality neither we are testing the Bell inequality.
He believes that the concept of contextuality allows considering a population of entangled particles at the same time. That would allow selecting different particle pairs according to setting choices.
It is obvious that he did not take that time to study what contextuality means in a Bell-Kochen-Specker sense. I also explain that in my comment.
The hard part to understand in all this is how he managed to get it published by a journal like EPL. I suppose that we have to admire this persistence and congratulate him for his publication but at same time explain why he is wrong. Personal attacks are unnecessary.

[gill1109]

He has functions A(a,b,lambda), which is clear and explicit from this paper. As I showed by a concrete example this leads to nonlocal effects(of course, we all know this). In the response to my comment, he says that having A(a,b,lambda) does not imply nonlocality.
In my example, I show the nonlocal effect by proving how a local change in Alice's choice of measurement produces a change in Bob's result. That constitutes the objective proof of Eugen's model nonlocality.
He explains in his response that by changing Alice's setting we change the particle pair that is being measured. That is right, we can avoid nonlocality by selecting different pairs of "entangled" particles according to the experimental settings. But, by doing so, we are not testing the concept of locality neither we are testing the Bell inequality.
He believes that the concept of contextuality allows considering a population of entangled particles at the same time. That would allow selecting different particle pairs according to setting choices.
It is obvious that he did not take that time to study what contextuality means in a Bell-Kochen-Specker sense. I also explain that in my comment.
The hard part to understand in all this is how he managed to get it published by a journal like EPL. I suppose that we have to admire this persistence and congratulate him for his publication but at same time explain why he is wrong. Personal attacks are unnecessary.

Thanks Justo! Indeed, nothing personal here. Maybe thanks to EPL Eugen can get his ideas across to someone else.

[Esail]

It is obvious that he did not take that time to study what contextuality means in a Bell-Kochen-Specker sense. I also explain that in my comment.
The hard part to understand in all this is how he managed to get it published by a journal like EPL.

Justo,
I had the intention not to take part in the discussion after everything has been said what needs to be said.
Since you are still following, I cannot spare you the following remarks:
Your criticism is unfounded. Your arguments in your Comment have been refuted on all counts. This has been confirmed by a peer review.
Instead of questioning the competence of the reviewer, you should try to understand the model. I understand from your remarks that you have not really understood it at all. What contextually means in the sense of Kochen-Specker has been clearly stated in my paper and in my Reply as well without beeing contradicted .

[Justo]

It is obvious that he did not take that time to study what contextuality means in a Bell-Kochen-Specker sense. I also explain that in my comment.
The hard part to understand in all this is how he managed to get it published by a journal like EPL.

Justo,
I had the intention not to take part in the discussion after everything has been said what needs to be said.
Since you are still following, I cannot spare you the following remarks:
Your criticism is unfounded. Your arguments in your Comment have been refuted on all counts. This has been confirmed by a peer review.
Instead of questioning the competence of the reviewer, you should try to understand the model. I understand from your remarks that you have not really understood it at all. What contextually means in the sense of Kochen-Specker has been clearly stated in my paper and in my Reply as well without beeing contradicted.

Essail, your model is notoriously and explicitly nonlocal for everyone (except EPL's reviewers) as I could see in discussions in this forum as well as in ResearchGate and Physics Forum.
I tried to understand how you think and why you claim that your model is local. In my comment, I explain how nonlocality arises by an example of how your model predicts the behavior o a pair of entangled particles. You rejected the nonlocal effect by saying that in my example there are two different pairs of entangled particles. However, I explicitly point out there is only one pair, otherwise, we cannot test locality. How can that be? Are you just avoiding the issue? I don't think so, I assume that you are convinced of what you are saying but is hard for me (and others) to understand what is it that you are thinking.
Of course, someone who wants to know whether your model is local or not only has to notice that your functions A(a,b,lambda) and B(a,b, lambda) contain both settings, that's all.
I once asked you if your model contemplates an isotropic population of particles that are selected according to settings choices. You did not understand my question, so I guess is not that.
The only alternative that I can think of is: in your model, the pair of selected photons materialize according to the settings. That would be just equivalent to wave function collapse, i.e., a notorious nonlocal effect as the analytical expressions of your functions reveal.

By way, you should ask yourself this question: do you really believe that after more than fifty years no one noticed that Bell omitted contextuality in his derivation? Even worst if you consider that Bell discovered contextuality before Kochen and Specker.
I am not saying that such a big blunder is impossible, but it is indeed a huge claim. It would be ridicule and ruin the careers of various high-profile physicists like Aspect and Zeilinger.

[gill1109]

Interestingly, Diether and Christian's recently published model http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.28311.91047/1 can also be interpreted as one with two pairs of particles generated, each measured at different angles, then the difference between the results used to engineer a mysterious (but not according to Joy Christian mystical) "quaternionic spin-flip".

[Esail]

Essail, your model is notoriously and explicitly nonlocal for everyone (except EPL's reviewers) as I could see in discussions in this forum as well as in ResearchGate and Physics Forum.
You rejected the nonlocal effect by saying that in my example there are two different pairs of entangled particles. However, I explicitly point out there is only one pair, otherwise, we cannot test locality. How can that be? Are you just avoiding the issue? I don't think so, I assume that you are convinced of what you are saying but is hard for me (and others) to understand what is it that you are thinking.
Of course, someone who wants to know whether your model is local or not only has to notice that your functions A(a,b,lambda) and B(a,b, lambda) contain both settings, that's all.

Photons and Photon pairs do not exist independently of the context which is given by the setting of the selecting polarizer. Remember the singlet state is not separable. In my model photons are described by polarization and the value of lambda. The polarization of photons selected by a polarizer set to alpha is alpha. Photons from the initial state with polarization 0° /90° contribute to these photon stream by a fraction of cos**2(alpha) and sin**2(alpha) respectively. In your example you are talking of photons with different polarization which are definitely not the same as they have different polarization and come from different fractions. This is the crucial point to understand in order to understand the model. Other than some participants of this discussion the EPL reviewers have read the paper carefully and understood it.

Functions A(a,lambda) and B( b, lambda) aimed to be describing the measurement results do not exist according to my model. They also cannot exist in any model which correctly describes the quantum effects as Bell has proved.
In my model B(a,b, lambda) =+1 describes matching events where polarizer A is set to a and polarizer B is set to b. This comes from the fact that a selection of photons at side A with polarization a means a selection of their peer photons at side B but perpendicular polarized a+pi/2 (initial conditions, details in the paper)

[gill1109]

Functions A(a,lambda) and B( b, lambda) aimed to be describing the measurement results do not exist according to my model. They also cannot exist in any model which correctly describes the quantum effects as Bell has proved.

So your paper does not disprove Bell's theorem! The title is wrong. Or at least: a bit misleading.

Niels Bohr would agree with you. The context of the experiment is the pair of settings a and b. But Einstein was not happy with that. Niels Bohr again and again said things which nobody could understand but everybody knew he was a genius, so they assumed he was saying very deep, true, things. "Copenhagen" became a religion.

[Justo]

In my model B(a,b, lambda) =+1 describes matching events where polarizer A is set to a and polarizer B is set to b. This comes from the fact that a selection of photons at side A with polarization a means a selection of their peer photons at side B but perpendicular polarized a+pi/2 (initial conditions, details in the paper)

Exactly! Matching events and selections of photons are nonlocal effects. You can match events on Bob's side only after knowing the corresponding setting on Alice's side. Those events are space-like separated and is what everybody calls "nonlocal".
Now, those events are actually no-signaling but that is not what Einstein and Bell call local.
The only way that the phenomenon you describe would be local is if pairs of matching electrons preexist the measurements. But then you are talking about an ensemble or population of matching pairs of photons. Otherwise, you make them materialize instantaneously on both sides.
Let me sincerely congratulate you once more for not publishing your paper in a predatory journal.

[Esail]

Exactly! Matching events and selections of photons are nonlocal effects. You can match events on Bob's side only after knowing the corresponding setting on Alice's side. Those events are space-like separated and is what everybody calls "nonlocal".
The only way that the phenomenon you describe would be local is if pairs of matching electrons preexist the measurements. But then you are talking about an ensemble or population of matching pairs of photons. Otherwise, you make them materialize instantaneously on both sides.

Justo,

You are not reading carefully what I am writing. That is the whole difficulty of our discussion. I have written:

In my model B(a,b, lambda) =+1 describes matching events where polarizer A is set to a and polarizer B is set to b. This comes from the fact that a selection of photons at side A with polarization a means a selection of their peer photons at side B but perpendicular polarized a+pi/2 (initial conditions, details in the paper)

Read that again carefully and read the paper carefully. Then you understand that the model is local. And if you have doubts please, refer to what I have written rather than referring to ideas of models that spring from your own thoughts.
The singlet state as well as my model do not describe an ensemble of photon pairs. Rather a beam of photon pairs comes into existence by a selection, all photons on each side with the same polarization. Only the parameter lambda is statistically distributed over the photon pairs.
For the next three weeks I'm on vacation and will not respond to any post.

[Justo]

In my model B(a,b, lambda) =+1 describes matching events where polarizer A is set to a and polarizer B is set to b. This comes from the fact that a selection of photons at side A with polarization a means a selection of their peer photons at side B but perpendicular polarized a+pi/2 (initial conditions, details in the paper)

Let us say that Alice masures first, what is the state of Bob's photon before Alice makes her measurement?
After you respond to that question, please tell us what is the state of Bob's photon after Alice measured in direction "a"? I suppose the answer is a+90. But please tell us the state before Alice measurement.

[Esail]

In my model B(a,b, lambda) =+1 describes matching events where polarizer A is set to a and polarizer B is set to b. This comes from the fact that a selection of photons at side A with polarization a means a selection of their peer photons at side B but perpendicular polarized a+pi/2 (initial conditions, details in the paper)

Let us say that Alice masures first, what is the state of Bob's photon before Alice makes her measurement?
After you respond to that question, please tell us what is the state of Bob's photon after Alice measured in direction "a"? I suppose the answer is a+90. But please tell us the state before Alice measurement.

The state depends on the selection. You have two choices:
1. Select by PA in state a. This selects the peer photons on side B in state a+pi/2.
2. Select by PB in state b. This selects the peer photons on side A in state b-pi/2.
A selection is required to define a state. You can make predictions for an assumed selection which turn out accordingly after a real measurement.

The answer to your question depends on what you mean with Bob’s state. If you mean all photons which exit polarizer PB the state is b (case 2) before and after Bob's measurement.
If you mean the peer photons of the selection by PA the state of those photons is a+pi/2 (case 1) before and after Alice’s measurement.

[gill1109]

In my model B(a,b, lambda) =+1 describes matching events where polarizer A is set to a and polarizer B is set to b. This comes from the fact that a selection of photons at side A with polarization a means a selection of their peer photons at side B but perpendicular polarized a+pi/2 (initial conditions, details in the paper)

Let us say that Alice masures first, what is the state of Bob's photon before Alice makes her measurement?
After you respond to that question, please tell us what is the state of Bob's photon after Alice measured in direction "a"? I suppose the answer is a+90. But please tell us the state before Alice measurement.

The state depends on the selection. You have two choices:
1. Select by PA in state a. This selects the peer photons on side B in state a+pi/2.
2. Select by PB in state b. This selects the peer photons on side A in state b-pi/2.
A selection is required to define a state. You can make predictions for an assumed selection which turn out accordingly after a real measurement.

The answer to your question depends on what you mean with Bob’s state. If you mean all photons which exit polarizer PB the state is b (case 2) before and after Bob's measurement.
If you mean the peer photons of the selection by PA the state of those photons is a+pi/2 (case 1) before and after Alice’s measurement.

This looks to me like spooky collapse of the wave function. Selecting either photon by measuring it changes the state of the other *in a way which depends on how they were measured*.

[Esail]

This looks to me like spooky collapse of the wave function. Selecting either photon by measuring it changes the state of the other *in a way which depends on how they were measured*.

The state depends on the selection due to indistinguishability. A selection of photons 1 by polarizer PA set to alpha is also a selection of photons 2 which would pass a polarizer PB at alpha+pi/2. Those photons 2 are in state alpha+pi/2 according to MA3. So it is not true that the measurement at PA changes the state of all photons 2. It only reveals the polarization alpha+pi/2 of the selected photons 2.

[gill1109]

This looks to me like spooky collapse of the wave function. Selecting either photon by measuring it changes the state of the other *in a way which depends on how they were measured*.

The state depends on the selection due to indistinguishability. A selection of photons 1 by polarizer PA set to alpha is also a selection of photons 2 which would pass a polarizer PB at alpha+pi/2. Those photons 2 are in state alpha+pi/2 according to MA3. So it is not true that the measurement at PA changes the state of all photons 2. It only reveals the polarization alpha+pi/2 of the selected photons 2.

These ideas remind me of Fred Diether and Joy Christian's latest simulation model (Mathematica language).
See http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=481&start=640#p14794 for a version in Python
I recall that Bryan Sanctuary used to promote ideas based somehow on two measurements on each photon.
Chantal Roth programmed simulations of it for him.

By the way, what is MA3?

[Esail]

This looks to me like spooky collapse of the wave function. Selecting either photon by measuring it changes the state of the other *in a way which depends on how they were measured*.

The state depends on the selection due to indistinguishability. A selection of photons 1 by polarizer PA set to alpha is also a selection of photons 2 which would pass a polarizer PB at alpha+pi/2. Those photons 2 are in state alpha+pi/2 according to MA3. So it is not true that the measurement at PA changes the state of all photons 2. It only reveals the polarization alpha+pi/2 of the selected photons 2.

By the way, what is MA3?

MA3 is a Model assumption. See the paper section 2.2.
It should be noted that no state can be attributed to a system in singlet state unless a selection is made for which the state is then revealed. This corresponds to the inseparability of the singlet state in the Hilbert space.

[gill1109]

This looks to me like spooky collapse of the wave function. Selecting either photon by measuring it changes the state of the other *in a way which depends on how they were measured*.

The state depends on the selection due to indistinguishability. A selection of photons 1 by polarizer PA set to alpha is also a selection of photons 2 which would pass a polarizer PB at alpha+pi/2. Those photons 2 are in state alpha+pi/2 according to MA3. So it is not true that the measurement at PA changes the state of all photons 2. It only reveals the polarization alpha+pi/2 of the selected photons 2.

By the way, what is MA3?

MA3 is a Model assumption. See the paper section 2.2.
It should be noted that no state can be attributed to a system in singlet state unless a selection is made for which the state is then revealed. This corresponds to the inseparability of the singlet state in the Hilbert space.

Dear Eugen, I'm sorry to say that I find your paper incomprehensible; I think Justo's criticism is well-founded; and your rebuttal of Justo's criticism is again incomprehensible. As you know, several other people on the forum thought much the same.

Could you please outline your model in terms of instructions to a computer programmer, who is programming three computers: S standing for source, A standing for Alice's detection apparatus, B standing for Bob's detection apparatus. S sends some information defining the state of two photons to both to A and B. I freely choose angles alpha and beta and send them also to A and B respectively. A then computes an outcome +/-1, and B computes an outcome +/-1. The program running on computer A therefore must deliver +/-1 as some function of alpha and the information sent from S. The program running on computer B therefore must also deliver +/-1 as some function of beta and the information sent from S. In my view, Bell's theorem says that computer programs for S, A and B cannot exist, which (in a long run of repetitions of what I just described) would reproduce the well known correlations of an EPR-B experiment.

Do you agree or disagree with my claim that such programs cannot be written?

Do you claim that your EPL paper shows that they can be written, and how?

I'm not asking you to start programming networked computers A, B and S. I can do that very well myself, if only you can give me instructions. For instance, tell me what kind of data Computer S sends to A and B, and what functions must be taken of that data and of the angles alpha, beta, in order to generate outcomes +/- 1. Your computers may use tables of random numbers or pseudo random number generators. Thy can use the same tables or the same generators with the same seeds - so in fact each computer can know exactly what randomness can happen on the others. The important thing is the connections between the computers. After A and B have respectively received alpha and beta, and information from the source, they are on their own. They must generate their outcomes. But having done so, as far as I am concerned, they may now talk to one another, in preparation for another "trial", for which I might use the same angles or different ones, just as I like.

[Esail]

[
Could you please outline your model in terms of instructions to a computer programmer, who is programming three computers: S standing for source, A standing for Alice's detection apparatus, B standing for Bob's detection apparatus. S sends some information defining the state of two photons to both to A and B. I freely choose angles alpha and beta and send them also to A and B respectively. A then computes an outcome +/-1, and B computes an outcome +/-1. The program running on computer A therefore must deliver +/-1 as some function of alpha and the information sent from S. The program running on computer B therefore must also deliver +/-1 as some function of beta and the information sent from S. In my view, Bell's theorem says that computer programs for S, A and B cannot exist, which (in a long run of repetitions of what I just described) would reproduce the well known correlations of an EPR-B experiment.

Do you agree or disagree with my claim that such programs cannot be written?

Do you claim that your EPL paper shows that they can be written, and how?

I'm not asking you to start programming networked computers A, B and S. I can do that very well myself, if only you can give me instructions. For instance, tell me what kind of data Computer S sends to A and B, and what functions must be taken of that data and of the angles alpha, beta, in order to generate outcomes +/- 1. Your computers may use tables of random numbers or pseudo random number generators. Thy can use the same tables or the same generators with the same seeds - so in fact each computer can know exactly what randomness can happen on the others. The important thing is the connections between the computers. After A and B have respectively received alpha and beta, and information from the source, they are on their own. They must generate their outcomes. But having done so, as far as I am concerned, they may now talk to one another, in preparation for another "trial", for which I might use the same angles or different ones, just as I like.

Gill
the program can indeed be written. You just have to follow the assumptions in the text and implement what is written there
1. a selection of photons on side A by polarizer PA set to a means a selection of their peer photons on side B so that they would hit a polarizer PB set to a+pi/2.
2. the polarization of photons from the singlet state selected by a polarizer set to a has the value a due to indistinguishability.

Given a polarizer setting a and b and a statistical distribution of lambda you can calculate the desired probabilities.

[gill1109]

[
Could you please outline your model in terms of instructions to a computer programmer, who is programming three computers: S standing for source, A standing for Alice's detection apparatus, B standing for Bob's detection apparatus. S sends some information defining the state of two photons to both to A and B. I freely choose angles alpha and beta and send them also to A and B respectively. A then computes an outcome +/-1, and B computes an outcome +/-1. The program running on computer A therefore must deliver +/-1 as some function of alpha and the information sent from S. The program running on computer B therefore must also deliver +/-1 as some function of beta and the information sent from S. In my view, Bell's theorem says that computer programs for S, A and B cannot exist, which (in a long run of repetitions of what I just described) would reproduce the well known correlations of an EPR-B experiment.

Do you agree or disagree with my claim that such programs cannot be written?

Do you claim that your EPL paper shows that they can be written, and how?

I'm not asking you to start programming networked computers A, B and S. I can do that very well myself, if only you can give me instructions. For instance, tell me what kind of data Computer S sends to A and B, and what functions must be taken of that data and of the angles alpha, beta, in order to generate outcomes +/- 1. Your computers may use tables of random numbers or pseudo random number generators. Thy can use the same tables or the same generators with the same seeds - so in fact each computer can know exactly what randomness can happen on the others. The important thing is the connections between the computers. After A and B have respectively received alpha and beta, and information from the source, they are on their own. They must generate their outcomes. But having done so, as far as I am concerned, they may now talk to one another, in preparation for another "trial", for which I might use the same angles or different ones, just as I like.

Gill
the program can indeed be written. You just have to follow the assumptions in the text and implement what is written there
1. a selection of photons on side A by polarizer PA set to a means a selection of their peer photons on side B so that they would hit a polarizer PB set to a+pi/2.
2. the polarization of photons from the singlet state selected by a polarizer set to a has the value a due to indistinguishability.

Given a polarizer setting a and b and a statistical distribution of lambda you can calculate the desired probabilities.

Of course, one program running on one computer can easily be written. But what about three programs each doing a different task?