Comment on ON EPR PARADOX, BELL'S INEQUALITIES AND EXPERIMENTS THAT PROVE NOTHING

Avshalom C. Elitzur

Published Jan 1, 2008• 0 citations

Abstract

This paper purports to make a counter-revolution in physics. In a decisive and self-assured manner it points out a series of alleged basic errors committed by some of quantum mechanics’ founders. The author’s main criticism addresses the classic Einstein-PodolskyRosen paper. In this paper’s 6 equation he ”immediately” spots an error. This error, he goes on to contend, was followed by all the papers that followed the EPR paper over the decades, all of which ”prove nothing”. Thus, we had to wait 72 years for Ignatovich to realize that Einstein et al. merely misunderstood the uncertainty principle! Not even Einstein’s sharpest critics, among them Bohr and Heisenberg, noticed this misunderstanding. Moreover, Bell, Bohm & Aharonov, Aspect and all their followers to this day just wasted their time continuing Einstein et al.’s alleged error, to which the author generously

Related papers

EPR and Bell Theorem

Muhammad Suhail Zubairy

The first round of the Einstein–Bohr debates took place when Einstein challenged Bohr’s principle of complementarity at the Solvay conference in 1927 and Bohr successfully defended it. The most serious challenge, however, came in 1935 when a paper by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) argued that quantum mechanics was incomplete through a gedanken experiment motivating an approach based on hidden variables. In this chapter, EPR’s arguments about the incompleteness of quantum mechanics and Bohr’s reply to them are presented. The ultimate answer came almost 30 years later, almost ten years after Einstein’s death, and was nothing that Einstein would have expected. Bell’s inequality and the subsequent Bell-CHSH inequality, that are satisfied by all theories based on the “self-evident truths” of reality and locality are discussed. The startling results that quantum mechanics violates Bell’s inequality and the experimental results are in agreement with the prediction of quantum mechanics are presented.

Oxford University Press eBooksMay 7, 20200 citations

On Bell Experiments and Quantum Entanglement

Guang-Liang Li

Bell inequalities are intended to formulate mathematically the argument of the thought-experiment proposed by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) in the Einstein-Bohr Debate. Devised to test Bell inequalities against quantum mechanics for resolving the Einstein-Bohr debate, Bell experiments are purportedly modern versions of the EPR experiment. However, there exists a fatal logical flaw in Bell experiments. Because of the logical flaw, Bell experiments differ essentially from the EPR experiment, and quantum correlation in the EPR experiment is not "quantum entanglement" in Bell experiments; the latter is not physically meaningful. In addition to the logical flaw in Bell experiments, a physical constraint imposed on measuring individual quantum objects is violated by all Bell inequalities, which makes Bell inequalities physically meaningless. Unlike Bell experiments, the EPR experiment will not violate any physical constraint, and the EPR argument has no logical flaw. Consequently, the experimental invalidation of Bell inequalities is not evidence for falsifying the two fundamental hypotheses for scientific research, i.e., locality and realism, underlying the EPR experiment, and by no means can Bell experiments resolve the Einstein-Bohr debate. Stemming from abandoning either locality or realism or both, the so-called new applications of quantum mechanics, including various quantum information technologies, are all ineligible and doomed to failure, for they attempt to exploit physically meaningless "quantum superposition" or "quantum entanglement", treating them as physical resources "out there" in the real world.

QeiosSep 4, 20233 citations

On EPR Paradox, No Entanglement Theorem for Separate Particles and Consequences

V. K. Igatovich

EPR paper contains an error. Its correction leads to a conclusion that position and momentum of a particle can be defined precisely simultaneously, EPR paradox does not exist and uncertainty relations have nothing to do with quantum mechanics. Logic of the EPR paper shows that entangled states of separated particles do not exist and therefore there are no nonlocality in quantum mechanics. Bell's inequalities are never violated, and results of experiments, proving their violation, are shown to be false. Experiments to prove absence of nonlocality are proposed where Bell's inequalities are replaced by precise prediction. Interpretation of quantum mechanics in terms of classical field theory is suggested. Censorship against this paper is demonstrated.

arXiv:1007.3202Jan 1, 20100 citations

Closer Look at EPR Paradox and Bell’s Inequality

Vladimir K. Ignatovich

The EPR paradox is shown to be a result of the wrong definitions in quantum mechanics of such physical quantities as momentum and position. The corrected definitions show that momentum and position of particles can be precisely defined simultaneously and uncertainty relations do not prevent it. Therefore, with correct definition of physical quantities in quantum mechanics, the paradox disappears. The Bohm Aharonov version of the EPR paradox is illustrated by the example of measuring the polarization of photon pairs. The common view of the two photon state radiated by a source is presented. The common Bell’s inequality is discussed and the simplest version of it for a specific hidden variable is derived. A possibility of an experimental study of whether a photon and its polarization are preexistent before measurements is considered.

American Journal of Modern PhysicsApr 17, 20151 citation

Can violations of Bell's inequalities be considered as a final proof of quantum physics?

Francois B. Hénault

Nowadays, it is commonly admitted that the experimental violation of Bell’s inequalities that was successfully demonstrated in the last decades by many experimenters, are indeed the ultimate proof of quantum physics and of its ability to describe the whole microscopic world and beyond. But the historical and scientific story may not be envisioned so clearly: it starts with the original paper of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) aiming at demonstrating that the formalism of quantum theory is incomplete. It then goes through the works of D. Bohm, to finally proceed to the famous John Bell’s relationships providing an experimental setup to solve the EPR paradox. In this communication is proposed an alternative reading of this history, showing that modern experiments based on correlations between light polarizations significantly deviate from the original spirit of the EPR paper. It is concluded that current experimental violations of Bell’s inequalities cannot be considered as an ultimate proof of the completeness of quantum physics models.

arXiv:1310.2426Proceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIEOct 1, 20131 citation

EPR: what has it taught us

Henry Pierce Stapp

This symposium commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of the paper of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen is a fitting place to review what that work and its sequels have taught us. Prima facie, the EPR paper appears to have been exceedingly counter-productive for the following reasons: (1) The work was quickly rebutted by Bohr, and this rebuttal was apparently accepted by most workers in the field. (2) Scientists who adopted the position advocated by Bohr have produced, in the intervening fifty years, a marvelous body of useful theory, whereas those following the course suggested by EPR have produced nothing of any certified practical value. (3) It has been shown by Bell that the conclusion reached by EPR is incompatible with their assumptions. Chemists and physicists have recently begun to examine the behavior of quantum mechanical systems that are very small, yet large enough to influence their environment in ways that appreciably modify their own behavior, vis-a-vis the behavior they would have if isolated. Because these systems are neither small enough to be treated as isolated (or as residing in a classically described environment) between preparation and detection, nor large enough to be treated classically, they do not conform to the format demanded by the Copenhagen interpretation. Indeed, the behavior of these systems depends on ontological considerations that were irrelevant in the situations covered by the Copenhagen interpretation, and that were systematically ignored in that interpretation. Scientists now face the task of enlarging the scope of quantum theory to cover these new situations, and comparing the empirical consequences of various ontological assumptions. 17 refs.

May 1, 19851 citation