We present mathematical models that also may be formulated as computer models for experiments that feature single photon resolution and multiple pairs of polarizers to determine the sorting into ordinary and extraordinary channels. The models are based on Einstein’s hypothesis of elements of physical reality that determine the photon properties and are at first developed for Malus-type experiments. It is then shown that analogous models apply to the well-known Clauser-Aspect-Zeilinger experiments and violate all Bell-type inequalities without violating Einstein’s separation principle. The Bell-type inequalities do not apply to the actual experiments, because they cannot obey the physically necessary symmetry with respect to polarizer-pair rotations. We believe that these findings suggest a change of current interpretations of quantum entanglement away from instantaneous influences at a distance, as promoted in the physics Nobel-lectures 2022, and back toward Einstein’s ideas as well as the more recent ideas of Gerard ‘t Hooft.
We present mathematical models that also may be formulated as computer models for experiments that feature single photon resolution and multiple pairs of polarizers to determine the sorting into ordinary and extraordinary channels. The models are based on Einstein’s hypothesis of elements of physical reality that determine the photon properties and are at first developed for Malus-type experiments. It is then shown that analogous models apply to the well-known Clauser-Aspect-Zeilinger experiments and violate all Bell-type inequalities without violating Einstein’s separation principle. The Bell-type inequalities do not apply to the actual experiments, because they cannot obey the physically necessary symmetry with respect to polarizer-pair rotations. We believe that these findings suggest a change of current interpretations of quantum entanglement away from instantaneous influences at a distance, as promoted in the physics Nobel-lectures 2022, and back toward Einstein’s ideas as well as the more recent ideas of Gerard ‘t Hooft.
ABSTRACT This work presents a revised analysis and corresponding perspective of Bell‐type inequalities and their connection to entanglement in polarization experiments with single‐photon resolution. It is argued that standard derivations of Bell‐type inequalities implicitly rely on additional assumptions beyond those originally stated, specifically concerning the cardinalities of the sets of measurements and the sets of photon‐pair properties (Einstein's elements of physical reality, Bell's ). Any model‐based averages must depend on these cardinalities and violations of Bell‐type inequalities become possible for certain ranges of them. In addition, we argue that for Aspect‐type experiments, the statistical properties associated with Bell's (hidden variable) λ can be different before and after actual photon‐transmission through the polarizers. This distinction is particularly necessary for the actual equipment used in the Aspect‐type experiments. Building on these observations, we construct a model based on a consistent evaluation of the measurement events relative to each other. The model reproduces all quantum‐mechanical expectation values for polarization correlations without invoking instantaneous influences at a distance, and additionally yields explicit outcomes for individual photon‐pair measurements. Within this framework, our Einstein‐type Global Space‐Time Model (GSTM) accounts also for polarization correlations in Malus‐type experiments and addresses all commonly discussed paradoxes associated with single‐photon measurements.
The Nobel Prize in Physics 2022 was awarded to three experiment physicists: Alain Aspect, John F. Clauser and Anton Zeilinger, for their contributions to “experiments with entangled photons, establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science”. In this paper, the history, basics, and applications related with the Bell inequalities are reviewed. The discussion of fundamental issues on quantum mechanics dated back to the year 1927 when the fifth Solvay conference was held, highlighting intense arguments between Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr. At the time, Einstein expressed, publicly for the first time, his critical attitude towards quantum mechanics. While the arguments did not reach a decisive conclusion, Bohr’s probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics, the Copenhagen interpretation, had since been well circulated among the community. Einstein’s arguments with Bohr lasted many years after the conference. The arguably most famous one was the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox, proposed in a 1935 paper written by the three authors. They stated, by flawless reasoning, that quantum mechanics is ‘incomplete’. Bohr replied immediately. So did Erwin Schrödinger, who, in particular, coined the term ‘entangled’ for the first time to describe the bizarre quantum mechanical property. Nevertheless, the EPR paper received few citations at its publication, until 1990’s when quantum information science started blossoming. From today’s perspective, the paper resembles the ‘sleeping beauty’ who slumbered for decades before fully awakening. It has been widely accepted that it was John S. Bell who eventually resolved the EPR paradox. But many important figures before him should not go unnoticed, including John A. Wheeler, Chien-Shiung Wu, David Bohm, to name a few. In 1964, Bell wrote down a mathematical inequality which satisfies local hidden variable theory but which can be violated in quantum mechanics. The significance is that Bell’s inequality brings the rather philosophic debates on the EPR paradox down to be experimentally testable. Hence, an experiment is here appealing, as is the case in all fields of physics. To the end, John F. Clauser, alongside Stuart J. Freedman, conducted an experiment in 1972 to test a Bell inequality, the Bell-Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) inequality, proposed by him and his collaborators in 1969. The results, however, leaves loopholes open. One of the loopholes was closed in a later experiment led by Alain Aspect in 1982. The Bell-CHSH inequality was later tested under a much stricter condition by Anton Zeilinger’s team. Two most important loopholes were both closed by three teams in 2015 independently. Zeilinger’s team was among them. Almost all experiments to date have confirmed quantum mechanical predictions. Zeilinger’s team also performed the first teleportation of unknown quantum states, the first entanglement swapping, along with other contributions pioneering the quantum information science. In retrospect, the foundational study of quantum theory has been developed over a century. It once drew much of quantum physics founders’ attention, went virtually unnoticed while other physical fields advanced, had for quite a while been considered to have very weak relationship with major physics, and finally revived in recent decades leading to rapid progress in quantum information science and quantum technology. We believe that the Nobel Prize in Physics this year is not only an award and recognition to past achievements, but also heralds a new era of science in future.
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.
We present a Monte Carlo model of Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen experiments that may be implemented on two independent computers and resembles the measurements of the Clauser–Aspect–Zeilinger-type which are performed in two distant stations SA and SB. Our computer model is local deterministic because we show that a theorist in station SB is able to conceive the products of the measurement outcomes of both stations, conditional to any possible equipment configuration in station SA. We show that the Monte Carlo model violates Bell-type inequalities and approaches the results of quantum theory for certain relationships between the number of measurements performed and the number of possible different physical properties of the entangled photon pairs. These relationships are clearly linked to Vorob’ev cyclicities, which always enforce Bell-type inequalities. The realization of this cyclicity depends, however, on combinatorial symmetry considerations that, in turn, depend on the mathematical properties of Einstein’s elements of physical reality. Because these mathematical properties have never been investigated and, therefore, may be free to be chosen in the models for all published experiments, Einstein’s physics does not contradict the experimental findings, instantaneous influences at a distance are put into question and the paradox of Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen and Bell is, thus, resolved.
Bell’s inequality is derived by resorting to a hidden-variable theory devised for resolving the Einstein-Bohr debate on the conceptual foundations of quantum mechanics. The legitimacy of quantum superposition for describing the physical world is the essence of the debate. Einstein argued against the legitimacy of quantum superposition. Testing Bell’s inequality by experiments with the experimental results explained by Bell’s theorem opened the door to so-called quantum information technologies. In quantum information theory, “quantum bit” (or “qubit” for short) in a form of quantum superposition is supposed to represent quantum information. In the present paper, a new principle, the general principle of measurements, is introduced and proved as a mathematical theorem. Based on this principle, the experiments for testing Bell’s inequality and so-called experimental evidence for physically realizable “qubit” are scrutinized. The findings are as follows. Although most physicists believe that Einstein’s vision of the physical world contradicts the experimental results of testing Bell’s inequality, actually Einstein’s viewpoint is irrelevant to Bell’s theorem. Bell’s inequality failed to capture the essence of the Einstein-Bohr debate. The experimental results of testing Bell’s inequality and the measurement outcomes of various experiments involving “qubit” are all erroneously explained. Without involving hidden variables, quantum mechanics can be completed based on the general principle of measurements by using disjunction (“or”) as the logical relation between the orthonormal vectors that span an arbitrarily given Hilbert space, and the mathematical setting can remain essentially unchanged. All kinds of “qubit” violate the general principle of measurements and can only describe imaginary objects that do not exist in the real world. A very regrettable conclusion from the above findings is inevitable: Quantum information has no physical carriers, and all quantum information technologies are not physically realizable.
Bell’s inequality is derived by resorting to a hidden-variable theory devised for resolving the Einstein-Bohr debate on the conceptual foundations of quantum mechanics. The legitimacy of quantum superposition for describing the physical world is the essence of the debate. Einstein argued against the legitimacy of quantum superposition. Testing Bell’s inequality by experiments with the experimental results explained by Bell’s theorem opened the door to so-called quantum information technologies. In quantum information theory, “quantum bit” (or “qubit” for short) in a form of quantum superposition is supposed to represent quantum information. In the present paper, a new principle, the general principle of measurements, is introduced and proved as a mathematical theorem. Based on this principle, the experiments for testing Bell’s inequality and so-called experimental evidence for physically realizable “qubit” are scrutinized. The findings are as follows. Although most physicists believe that Einstein’s vision of the physical world contradicts the experimental results of testing Bell’s inequality, actually Einstein’s viewpoint is irrelevant to Bell’s theorem. Bell’s inequality failed to capture the essence of the Einstein-Bohr debate. The experimental results of testing Bell’s inequality and the measurement outcomes of various experiments involving “qubit” are all erroneously explained. Without involving hidden variables, quantum mechanics can be completed based on the general principle of measurements by using disjunction (“or”) as the logical relation between the orthonormal vectors that span an arbitrarily given Hilbert space, and the mathematical setting can remain essentially unchanged. All kinds of “qubit” violate the general principle of measurements and can only describe imaginary objects that do not exist in the real world. A very regrettable conclusion from the above findings is inevitable: Quantum information has no physical carriers, and all quantum information technologies are not physically realizable.