A New Perspective on Malus and Bell

Olivier Bourhy

Published Oct 31, 2026• 0 citations

Abstract

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.

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.23845982

Related papers

On a common law for Malus and Bell

Olivier Bourhy

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

Oct 23, 20260 citations

Testing the Deviation of Single-Side Polarization State of Entangled Photons from Malus' Law: A Decisive Experimental Scheme Based on Coincidence Measurement

Jingyuan Guo

Bell inequality experiments have demonstrated that quantum entanglement violates the predictions of local realism. However, all Bell experiments are based on joint measurements of two photons, and their analysis implicitly assumes that "the polarization state of a single photon is ideally linear." This paper proposes an experimental scheme to directly test this assumption: using type-II spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC) to generate polarization-entangled photon pairs, employing fixed-angle measurement of the e-light channel as a coincidence gate to filter entangled photons in the o-light channel, then scanning the o-light analyzer angle with high precision to measure the coincidence count rate as a function of the analyzer angle, testing whether it strictly follows Malus' law I(\theta)=I_0\cos^2(\theta-\theta_0). If systematic deviation is observed in the curve, it would indicate the existence of asymmetric secondary polarization structures in the polarization state of entangled photons, providing an alternative explanatory pathway for Bell inequality violation distinct from nonlocality. This experiment employs a high-precision coincidence measurement scheme to ensure statistical significance and designs multiple control experiments to eliminate systematic errors. The experiment can be implemented in laboratories equipped with standard quantum optics equipment.

Aug 24, 20260 citations

Deterministic Interpretation of the Malus Law and Correlation in Experiments with Entangled Photons

Александр Иванович Гончаров

This paper examines a local deterministic model of an experiment involving correlated photons. The experimental setup involves a source that emits two linearly polarized photons in each act, two two-channel analyzers, and detectors included in the coincidence scheme. The orientation angle of the photon polarization plane is a random variable with a uniform distribution, and it is the same for simultaneously emitted photons. The model presented here is a generalization of the “naive example of hidden variable theory” described in A. Aspect's article ‘Bell's Theorem: The Naive View of an Experimentalist. In our model, the outcome of the photon interaction with the analyzer (hit in one of the two channels) is uniquely determined by the angle between the photon polarization plane and the analyzer axis and is described by a step function. The difference in our model is that the step function contains a large number of segments of different lengths. The location and lengths of the segments are set so that the probability of a photon hitting a specific channel of an ideal analyzer, determined by averaging the outcomes over small neighborhoods of angles, approaches the Malus law when the maximum length of a segment decreases. This ensures that the classical model is self-consistent. When ideal analyzers are used, the absolute value of the correlation coefficient of detector readings mainly does not exceed the values from Aspect's ‘naive example’. However, when analyzers with absorption are used, the calculated correlations for some orientations of the analyzers exceed the quantum mechanical values. Key words: linear polarization of photons, Malus law, entangled photons, correlations, hidden parameters.

Izvestiya of Altai State UniversityMar 28, 20230 citations

Quantum Entangled Photons are Synchronized Waves

Michael Macdonald

This letter challenges the standard interpretation of Bell test results, which has been used to argue for the abandonment of local realism. We demonstrate that the quantum-mechanical correlation Pc (θ) = cos2 (θ) and the classical Malus' Law result Pc (θ) = 1/2 cos2 (θ) + 1/4 are not contradictory but are complementary descriptions of two distinct source preparations. By modeling light as a real transverse electromagnetic wave, we identify the initial phase orientation of the wavefront as a local hidden variable. Stochastic (randomly prepared) photon sources produce four equally likely phase combinations, yielding the full Malus' Law distribution. Correlated sources, however, are physically constrained to produce only the synchronized subset of these combinations, yielding the cos2 (θ) correlation. We argue that standard Bell test analysis conflates these distinct populations and violates the Fair Sampling Assumption, rendering Bell's inequality inapplicable to the aggregated data. The observed "quantum" correlation is therefore the signature of a correlated source producing pre-synchronized wavefronts, not evidence of non-local communication. We conclude that local realism remains a viable, classical framework for describing these phenomena.

Oct 12, 20260 citations

Local Deterministic Model of Experiment with correlated Photons

Alexander I. Goncharov, Tatyana L. Serebryakova

The paper considers a local deterministic phenomenological model of an experiment with correlated photons. A source emits two same-state photons simultaneously in each act. Then each photon enters its own two-channel analyzer. There are two parameters that characterize the photon state in this model. The first one is the polarization plane orientation angle. The second parameter is an “additional” one that takes values within the [0,l] range. When the photon interacts with the analyzer, it either gets into the “+” or “-” channel or is absorbed in the analyzer. Such an outcome is determined by the angle between the photon polarization plane and the axis of the analyzer along with the value of the “additional” parameter. The probability of a photon entering the "+" channel P{A= l} obeys the Malus law when considering a single-particle experiment with polarized photons and no photon absorption. And for a two-particle experiment, the dependence of the correlation coefficient of detectors readings on the angles between the analyzers’ axes follows the classic linear law. However, the correlation coefficient is described by a polyline that satisfactorily approximates the exact function when absorption is considered, and the probability P{A=l} for individual polarized photons is quite close to the Malus law.

Izvestiya of Altai State UniversitySep 15, 20250 citations

A Comparison of Bell’s Theorem and Malus’s Law: Action-at-a-Distance is not Required in Order to Explain Results of Bell’s Theorem Experiments

Austin J. Fearnley

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.

Aug 1, 20190 citations