This paper shows that, using counterfactual definiteness, there is an enforceable duality between results of Malus Law experiments and the results from Bell experiments. The results are shown here to be equivalent in the two experiments subject to extending the Malus experiment by doubling it to match the structure of the results table of a Bell experiment. The Malus intensities also need to be converted into counterfactual correlations in order to enable results in both experiments to be compared using a common statistic. It is therefore possible to use the duality to explain the more esoteric Bell results via the simpler Malus results. As Malus results involve singleton particles rather than matched pairs of particles then there is no requirement for action at a distance nor entanglement to feature in an explanation of Malus results and therefore, using the duality, neither in Bell results. The ‘magic’ in Bell’s Theorem results is not eliminated as it still exists contained within Malus results, and that ‘magic’ [of somehow exceeding the Bell Inequalities] remains unexplained by this paper, except it is shown that the ‘magic’ does not involve action-at-a-distance nor entanglement.
This paper shows that, using counterfactual definiteness, there is an enforceable duality between results of Malus Law experiments and the results from Bell experiments. The results are shown here to be equivalent in the two experiments subject to extending the Malus experiment by doubling it to match the structure of the results table of a Bell experiment. The Malus intensities also need to be converted into counterfactual correlations in order to enable results in both experiments to be compared using a common statistic. It is therefore possible to use the duality to explain the more esoteric Bell results via the simpler Malus results. As Malus results involve singleton particles rather than matched pairs of particles then there is no requirement for action at a distance nor entanglement to feature in an explanation of Malus results and therefore, using the duality, neither in Bell results. The ‘magic’ in Bell’s Theorem results is not eliminated as it still exists contained within Malus results, and that ‘magic’ [of somehow exceeding the Bell Inequalities] remains unexplained by this paper, except it is shown that the ‘magic’ does not involve action-at-a-distance nor entanglement.
Malus’s law and the correlations of Bell-type experiments yield the same curve, the squared cosine of the angular offset between two polarizers. We propose a reinterpretation of both phenomena through a single mechanism: the correlation of responses at two points a and b, in series for Malus on a single photon, in parallel for Bell on two identical photons. No other situation is analyzed. The proposed resolution is strictly local, and reassigns cos²(a−b), observed in both cases, as the universal angular ratio of photons. The two experiments thus bring this correlation to light not because paired or polarized photons carry it, but because they make an otherwise invisible correlation testable. Bell’s theorem does not apply to this proposal, because cos²(a−b) is no longer read as the statistics of the responses at a and at b taken separately, but as the statistics of the responses at a and b taken jointly, independently of every other point. In other words, the cos² distribution of responses around an angle a holds only in association with the considered response at a, and does not constrain what the individual statistics of the response at b must be when the response at a is unknown. The article concludes that a strictly local explanation of Bell is possible again, and offers a falsifiable prediction: if identity sharing exists, understanding what it consists of will make it possible to produce identical photons without a common source.
Introduction Fifty years after the publication of Bell's theorem, there remains some controversy regarding what the theorem is telling us about quantum mechanics, and what the experimental violations of Bell inequalities are telling us about the world. This chapter represents my best attempt to be clear about what I think the lessons are. In brief: There is some sort of nonlocality inherent in any quantum theory, and, moreover, in any theory that reproduces, even approximately, the quantum probabilities for the outcomes of experiments. But not all forms of nonlocality are the same; there is a distinction to be made between action at a distance and other forms of nonlocality, and I will argue that the nonlocality needed to violate the Bell inequalities need not involve action at a distance. Furthermore, the distinction between forms of nonlocality makes a difference when it comes to compatibility with relativistic causal structure. The Bell locality condition is a condition which, if satisfied, renders possible a completely local account of the correlations between outcomes of spatially separated experiments. Bell's theorem tells us that the probabilities that we compute from quantum mechanics do not admit of such an account. Modulo auxiliary assumptions that, in my opinion, should be noncontroversial, this yields the conclusion that there must be something nonlocal about any theory that yields the quantum mechanical probabilities or anything close to them. One way to violate the Bell locality condition – and this is the way that any deterministic theory must do it – is via straightforward action at a distance. However, we should also consider the possibility of a stochastic theorywith probabilistic laws that involve irreducible correlations. The sort of nonlocality inherent in such a theory involves relations between events that are significantly different from causal relations as usually conceived. Perhaps surprisingly, such a theory, unlike its deterministic cousins, need not invoke a distinguished relation of distant simultaneity. This makes a difference for the situation of the two sorts of theories vis-a-vis relativity. Though a deterministic theory can achieve the appearance of being relativistic, at the level of observable phenomena, it can do so only by introducing a preferred foliation and with it a causal structure at odds with relativistic causal structures. Things are otherwise with dynamical collapse theories.
A local hidden variables solution of Malus’s Law and a circumvention of Bell’s Theorem. The solution for Bell assumes that antiparticles actually do travel backwards in time and therefore a Bell experiment begins not at the usual source of particle pairs but at the measurement of positrons and ends at the measurement of their paired partner electrons. The solution for Malus’s Law assumes that the distribution of hidden variables in a polarised beam can be deduced by reverse-engineering Malus’s Law intensity calculations. Malus’s Law and Bell’s Experiment can therefore each be explained using local hidden variables. A computer program is given to provide results of a Stern Gerlach detector using local hidden variables in a particle-at-a-time simulation.
Abstract Claims that entanglement, or non-local interaction ("spooky action-at-a-distance), has been experimentally proven are false. The claims are based entirely on the fact that the results of experiments performed to test that issue (EPR-Bohm experiments) violate various theoretical inequalities (Bell Inequalities).The various Bell Inequalities used to interpret the results of EPR-Bohm experiments are shown to be inappropriate for such experiments. The inequalities do not correctly provide for the correlation between the particles in each pair, which is the essence of such experiments; and therefore the inequalities are irrelevant. Claims that the results of such experiments, because they violate the inequalities, require the conclusion that the measurement of one particle in an "entangled" pair can instantly affect the state of its partner, even at great distances, are untrue and need to be modified.
Malus's law and the correlations of Bell-type experiments yield the same curve, the squared cosine of the angular gap between two polarizers. We show that they are the same phenomenon. A polarizer is a pair of orthogonal planes: its response is binary, exact on the axis and on the orthogonal, and the reading of a radial quantity by a plane is a projection, a cosine. A correlation between two polarizers is a double event: one projection factor per verdict, hence the square. The photon contributes only one property, x, defined by a single clause: two photons sharing x respond identically at equal angles. Malus tests x in series, on one photon that conserves it. Bell tests it in parallel, on a pair that shares it. No further hypothesis is required. The squared cosine thus belongs to the polarizer, and the correlation of Bell-type experiments receives a purely mechanical explanation. preprint submitted for peer review additional analysis : https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23630357
The empirical proof of Bell inequality violations was a landmark moment for research into quantum foundations. It commits us to a universe without strict relativistic locality or requires that we escape through a potential loophole like many-worlds or superdeterminism. In this work, we consider a sequential, single-spin experiment whose auto-correlations match the two-spin entangled correlations of a Bell scenario. We use a counterfactual equivalence between the two to argue that Bell-type correlations are actually just a different implementation of the sequential experiment. This comports well with the counterfactual basis of the original EPR argument, and explains any apparent non-locality as a consequence of indirectly measuring quantities that do not have predefined values, due to the state-altering nature of sequential spin measurements.