This article presents analysis of experimental data. The data was acquired from a recently published experiment, the link to the published paper is https://arxiv.org/abs/1511.03190. The data analysis gives an indication that the outcomes may not be totally probabilistic and may be guided by some other mechanism. This article only presents an independent observation and is not meant in any way to comment on the originally published findings of the referred experiment from which the data was acquired. This article also does not dispute any quantum mechanics quantitative predictions. It only presents the observation made so that more experiments/analysis may be conducted if deemed necessary. As such, the observation pointed out is minor and its magnitude can be attributed to independent probability. But the same “cumulated imbalance” direction and trend in all four setup combinations is something that would be hard to attribute to probability alone. Also, the accumulated imbalance cleared for all four setups exactly at the same time. The scope of this article is only statistical data. Anti correlation (when measured in the same angle) is always true, therefore it is not statistical in nature and is left out of scope.
This article presents analysis of experimental data. The data was acquired from a recently published experiment, the link to the published paper is https://arxiv.org/abs/1511.03190. The data analysis gives an indication that the outcomes may not be totally probabilistic and may be guided by some other mechanism. This article only presents an independent observation and is not meant in any way to comment on the originally published findings of the referred experiment from which the data was acquired. This article also does not dispute any quantum mechanics quantitative predictions. It only presents the observation made so that more experiments/analysis may be conducted if deemed necessary. As such, the observation pointed out is minor and its magnitude can be attributed to independent probability. But the same “cumulated imbalance” direction and trend in all four setup combinations is something that would be hard to attribute to probability alone. Also, the accumulated imbalance cleared for all four setups exactly at the same time. The scope of this article is only statistical data. Anti correlation (when measured in the same angle) is always true, therefore it is not statistical in nature and is left out of scope.
This is a statistical analysis of the experimental data used in a recent paper [M. Giustina et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 250401 (2015)], published at https://arxiv.org/abs/1511.03190. The data for this analysis was graciously made available by the authors as a private communication. This article is not meant in any way to comment upon the originally published findings of the experiment. Abstract – Till date, all experiments prove non-locality of quantum entanglement based upon overall statistical correlations and thus demonstrating that Bell’s inequality is violated. No detailed data analysis has been published yet. This article presents a first of its kind experimental analysis and it indicates that there is a real chance that entanglement may be local. This is a huge claim by any means. But it is necessary to make such dramatic claim due to two reasons – 1) It is based upon experimental data and can be tested and verified. 2) So that the QM community makes an effort to analyze detailed data to scrutinize the reality of entanglement. Due to large amount of data involved, experimentalists only look at data at aggregate level and do not scrutinize the raw data in full detail. When data of this experiment was analyzed at detail level, it was observed that non-locality of entanglement can not be settled until this kind of analysis is completed on data from multiple such experiments. The natural and prompt reaction from many may be to look for faults with this analysis without presenting the evidence that such analysis has already been completed. For curious people, observation is odd enough to be probed further. The complacent ones will look only for the faults, but those who welcome scrutiny, will challenge it with evidence and/or their own analysis at this detailed level. All sound theories welcome scrutiny and refute it with evidence. This article does not claim “classical mechanics” to be the solution. Quantum Mechanics predictions are correct in terms of averages. This analysis indicates that the statistical correlation percent of entanglement may be guided/balanced by some real/local mechanism rather than being independently probabilistic and spooky. It presents an intuitive mechanism that can explain statistical correlations without entanglement being non-local or entanglement being defined in a different way then it currently is. The scope of this article is only statistical data. Anti correlation (Bell’s state, when measured in the same angle) is always true, therefore it is not statistical in nature and is left out of scope. Moreover perfect anti correlation can easily be explained as a direct consequence of conservation laws. In fact, perfect anti correlation is a big red flag to the probabilistic nature. There is no such thing as zero, or one probability. Zero or one probability would actually be a law, not probability. So, perfect anti correlation itself indicates that the outcomes of entanglement can not be probabilistic; they have to be governed by law, not probability. If some balancing mechanism is found to exist then (in terms of magnitude), it really operates within probabilistic limits thereby making it very difficult to differentiate it from probabilistic nature. Therefore a detailed data analysis on many such experiments is necessary to rule it in/out. In fact it would require special experiments for its independent investigation. This can also explain why the correlations have been considered probabilistic for such a long history. Therefore, this type of experimental investigation is a must in order to conclude existence/nonexistence of non-local entanglement. By the time this revision is written, another experiment has been analyzed and published at http://vixra.org/abs/1611.0148 Both of the recent experiments give similar indications.
This is a statistical analysis of the experimental data used in a recent paper [Lynden K. Shalm et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 250402 - Published 16 December 2015 at http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.250402. The data for this analysis has been made available by the authors at http://pml.nist.gov/belldata/belldata+processed_compressed+hdf5.html in hdf5 format. This article is not meant in any way to comment upon the originally published findings of the experiment. Abstract – Till date, all experiments prove non-locality of entanglement based upon overall statistical correlations and thus demonstrating that Bell’s inequality is violated. No detailed data analysis has been published yet. This article presents detailed data analysis of its kind and it indicates that there is a real chance that non-local entanglement may not exist. This is a huge claim by any means. But it is necessary to make such dramatic claim due to two reasons – 1) It is based upon experimental data and can be tested and verified. 2) So that the QM community makes an effort to analyze detailed data to scrutinize the locality of entanglement. This is second experiment that gives such an indication. The first of this kind data analysis was conducted on another recent experiment data and the observation is posted at http://vixra.org/abs/1609.0237. Due to large amount of data involved, experimentalists only analyze data at aggregate level and do not scrutinize the raw data in full detail. When data of this experiment was analyzed at detail level, it was observed that non-locality of entanglement can not be settled until this kind of analysis is completed on data from multiple such experiments. The natural and prompt reaction from many may be to look for faults with this analysis without presenting the evidence that such analysis has already been completed. For curious people, observation is odd enough to be probed further. The complacent ones will look only for the faults, but those who welcome scrutiny, will challenge it with evidence and/or their own analysis at this detailed level. All sound theories welcome scrutiny and refute it with evidence. This article does not claim “classical mechanics” to be the solution. Quantum Mechanics predictions are correct in terms of averages. This analysis indicates that the statistical correlation percent of entanglement may be guided/balanced by some real/local mechanism rather than being independently probabilistic and spooky. It presents an intuitive mechanism that can explain statistical correlations without entanglement being non-local or entanglement being defined in a different way then it currently is. The scope of this article is only statistical data. Anti correlation (Bell’s state, when measured in the same angle) is always true, therefore it is not statistical in nature and is left out of scope. Moreover perfect anti correlation can easily be explained as a direct consequence of conservation laws. In fact, perfect anti correlation is a big red flag to the probabilistic nature. There is no such thing as zero, or one probability. Zero or one probability would actually be a law, not probability. So, perfect anti correlation itself indicates that the outcomes of entanglement can not be probabilistic, they have to be governed by law, not probability. If some balancing mechanism is found to exist then (in terms of magnitude), it really operates within probabilistic limits thereby making it very difficult to differentiate it from probabilistic nature. Therefore a detailed data analysis on many such experiments is necessary to rule it in/out. In fact it would require special experiments for its independent investigation. This can also explain why the correlations have been considered probabilistic for such a long history. Therefore, this type of experimental investigation is a must in order to conclude existence/nonexistence of non-local entanglement.
Throughout quantum mechanics there is statistical balance, in the collective response of an ensemble of systems to differing measurement types. Statistical balance is a core feature of quantum mechanics, underlying quantum mechanical states, and not yet explained. The concept of "statistical balance" is here explored, comparing its meaning since 2019 with its original meaning in 2001. Statistical balance now refers to a feature of contexts in which: (a) there is a prescribed probability other than 0 or 1 for the collective response of an ensemble to one measurement type; and (b) the collective response of the same ensemble to another measurement type demonstrates that no well-defined value can be attributed, for the property relevant to the original measurement type, to individual members of the ensemble. In some unexplained way, the outcomes of single runs of a measurement of the original type "balance" each other to give an overall result in line with the prescribed probability. Unexplained statistical balance prompts caution in assessing the conceptual implications of entanglement, measurement, uncertainty, and two-slit and Bell-type analyses. Physicists have a responsibility to the wider population to be conceptually precise about quantum mechanics, and to make clear that many possible conceptual implications are uncertain.
A Reproducible Method for Checking Earlier Events and Later Choices in Quantum Experiments QDL Research Program — Paper 11 | Version V1.0.0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23261100 Overview Quantum experiments can produce surprising results. Sometimes, an event is recorded first, and a measurement choice is made later. If these two events appear connected, an important question arises: Is this connection supported by the experimental data, or could it be explained by statistical variation, event selection, or measurement conditions? This paper presents a clear and reproducible method for investigating that question. It combines real experimental data, exact statistical calculations, source verification, and computer-based testing. The main goal is simple: make quantum-data calculations easier to understand, repeat, and independently check. What Does This Paper Study? The study examines how researchers can correctly compare an earlier recorded event with a later measurement setting. It focuses on five important questions: Were the earlier events and later settings correctly identified? Were all eligible events included using the original experimental rules? Do the observed numbers show a meaningful statistical relationship? Could selection effects, detection differences, or data-matching errors explain the result? Can another researcher reproduce the same calculations using the available sources? The paper provides mathematical formulas, numerical examples, source checks, and reproducible software for these questions. Three Main Research Applications 1. Munich Event-Ready Bell Experiment The first application studies data from a published quantum Bell experiment involving entangled atoms. The published dataset contains 55,568 events. We independently recalculated four-sector statistics from the published count tables. The main results are: Measurement Odds Ratio Fisher p-value Lab 1 0.997122 0.8653 Lab 2 0.980578 0.2486 These results do not provide stable evidence of an association between the selected variables in the full published counts. We also analyzed original event-level records from two experimental runs in April and June 2016. These files contain 20,403 valid paired events. By applying the original selection rule of 5,000 events per Bell-state class, we exactly reproduced the historical results. All 16 published sector counts matched, with zero differences. This demonstrates why correct event selection and source verification are important for reliable scientific calculations. 2. Photonic Quantum-Switch Experiment The second application examines published data from a 2026 photonic quantum-switch experiment. The original study reported a Bell-like causal-inequality value of approximately 1.8090 ± 0.0024, compared with a fixed-order bound of 1.75. We independently recalculated the relevant quantity using 256 published probability entries. Our calculated value was: 1.808954375 This agrees with the reported result at its published precision. We also examined six statistical comparisons involving measurement settings and marginal probabilities. These checks help distinguish an experimental causal-inequality result from a possible statistical relationship between an earlier event and a later setting. The two questions are different and should not be confused. 3. Testing the Method with 80,000 Synthetic Trials The third application uses 80,000 computer-generated trials, divided into four controlled scenarios. The scenarios represent: A system with no inserted effect. A system with a deliberately inserted statistical difference. A system affected by detection-efficiency differences. A system with information leakage before the earlier result was fully recorded. The software reproduced the expected numerical results for all four scenarios. These tests show how the method can identify known statistical patterns and distinguish them from possible experimental artifacts. The synthetic trials are software-validation data, not new laboratory observations. Main Contributions This paper brings together several important elements in one reproducible research workflow. 1. Clear event identification It defines which event happened earlier, which setting was chosen later, and how the records should be matched. 2. Exact statistical calculations It uses four-sector count tables, odds ratios, log-affinity measures, uncertainty estimates, and Fisher's exact tests. 3. Original-data verification It demonstrates how the correct historical event-selection rule can reproduce published results exactly. 4. Independent source comparisons It uses different quantum datasets without incorrectly treating their measurements as equivalent. 5. Reproducible software It provides a computational framework for repeating the calculations, checking results, and recording source limitations. Why Is This Work Useful? Scientific results become more valuable when other researchers can independently verify them. This paper offers a practical way to investigate complex quantum-data questions without depending only on interpretations or assumptions. The method can help researchers: Recheck published quantum experiments. Find problems caused by event selection or data matching. Compare statistical results across experimental runs. Separate real experimental measurements from simulated examples. Design more reliable tests for future quantum experiments. Understand which conclusions are supported by the available evidence. Scientific Scope This work is primarily about statistical verification, experimental-data interpretation, and reproducibility. It does not establish backwards-time signalling or a new fundamental physical law. The Munich published-count analysis and the two recovered original runs have different levels of source access. The quantum-switch experiment measures a different physical quantity. The synthetic trials are used only to test the software. These distinctions are maintained throughout the study. Data and Software Availability The calculations are supported by QDL Research Suite, a Python-based scientific software package containing tools for reproducible mathematical and statistical analysis. QDL Research Suite — All Versions: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22952901 QDL Research Suite v1.10.0 — Version Used: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23256494 The software provides calculation modules, reproducibility tools, automated tests, and verification outputs. The study also identifies the original experimental publications and available source datasets so that the calculations can be checked against their sources. Conclusion The central contribution of Paper 11 is a clear, source-linked method for checking quantum experimental data. It combines published experimental results, original event records, exact statistical methods, and controlled software tests. The work shows how careful data selection, transparent calculations, and independent verification can improve confidence in scientific analysis. Its purpose is to help make complex quantum research more understandable, reproducible, and reliable, while keeping mathematical results, experimental evidence, and physical interpretations clearly separated. Author: Roshankumar Chandaliya Research Program: Quantum Diverter Loop (QDL) Paper: 11 Version: V1.0.0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23261100
Quantum theory (QT) provides statistical predictions for various physical phenomena. To verify these predictions a considerable amount of data has been accumulated in the 'measurements' performed on the ensembles of identically prepared physical systems or in the repeated 'measurements' on some trapped 'individual physical systems'. The outcomes of these measurements are, in general, some numerical time series registered by some macroscopic instruments. The various empirical probability distributions extracted from these time series were shown to be consistent with the probabilistic predictions of QT. More than 70 years ago the claim was made that QT provided the most complete description of 'individual' physical systems and outcomes of the measurements performed on 'individual' physical systems were obtained in an intrinsically random way. Spin polarization correlation experiments (SPCEs), performed to test the validity of Bell inequalities, clearly demonstrated the existence of strong long-range correlations and confirmed that the beams hitting far away detectors somehow preserve the memory of their common source which would be destroyed if the individual counts of far away detectors were purely random. Since the probabilities describe the random experiments and are not the attributes of the 'individual' physical systems, the claim that QT provides a complete description of 'individual' physical systems seems not only unjustified but also misleading and counter productive. In this paper, we point out that we even do not know whether QT is predictably complete because it has not been tested carefully enough. Namely, it was not proven that the time series of existing experimental data did not contain some stochastic fine structures that could have been averaged out by describing them in terms of the empirical probability distributions. In this paper, we advocate various statistical tests that could be used to search for such fine structures in the data and to answer the title question of this paper. In our opinion a proper understanding of the statistical character of QT and of its limitations is crucial in the domains such as quantum optics and quantum information.