Kolmogorov’s Probability Spaces for “Entangled” Data-Subsets of EPRB Experiments: No Violation of Einstein’s Separation Principle
- 1 Center for Advanced Study, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, USA
Abstract
It is demonstrated that the use of Kolmogorov’s probability theory to describe results of quantum probability for EPRB (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm) experiments requires extreme care when different subsets of measurement outcomes are considered. J. S. Bell and his followers have committed critical inaccuracies related to spin-gauge and probability measures of such subsets, because they use exclusively a single probability space for all data sets and sub-sets of data. It is also shown that Bell and followers use far too stringent epistemological requirements for the consequences of space-like separation. Their requirements reach way beyond Einstein’s separation principle and cannot be met by the major existing physical theories including relativity and even classical mechanics. For example, the independent free will does not empower the experimenters to choose multiple independent spin-gauges in the two EPRB wings. It is demonstrated that the suggestion of instantaneous influences at a distance (supposedly “derived” from experiments with entangled quantum entities) is a consequence of said inaccuracies and takes back rank as soon as the Kolmogorov probability measures are related to a consistent global spin-gauge and permitted to be different for different data subsets: Using statistical interpretations and different probability spaces for certain subsets of outcomes instead of probability amplitudes related to single quantum entities, permits physical explanations without a violation of Einstein’s separation principle.
- Bell, J.S. (1964) Physics, 1, 195-200. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysicsPhysiqueFizika.1.195
- Einstein, A., Podolsky, B. and Rosen, N. (1935) Physical Review, 16, 777-780. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.47.777
- Wigner, E.P. (1970) American Journal of Physics, 38, 1005-1009. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1976526
- Weihs, G., Jennewein, T., Simon, C., Weinfurther, H. and Zeilinger, A. (1998) Physical Review Letters, 81, 5039-5043. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.5039
- Oaknin, D.H. (2015) Solving the EPR Paradox: An Explicit Statistical Model for the Singlet Quantum State. https://arxiv.org/abs/1411.5704
- Oaknin, D.H. (2020) Frontiers in Physics, 8, Article 142.
- Christian, J. (2018) Royal Society Open Science, 5, Article ID: 180526. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.180526
- Hess, K. (2015) Einstein Was Right! Pan Stanford Publishing, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1201/b16809
- Hess, K. and Philipp, W. (2005) Foundations of Physics, 35, 1749-1767. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-005-6520-y
- Accardi, L. (1981) Physics Reports, 77, 169-192. https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-1573(81)90070-3
- Khrennikov, A. (2015) Foundations of Physics, 45, 711-725. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-014-9851-8
- Cetto, A.M., Valdes-Hernandez, A. and de la Pena, L. (2020) Foundations of Physics, 50, 27-39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-019-00313-8
- d’Espagnat, B. (1979) The Quantum Theory and Reality. Scientific American, New York, 158-178. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1179-158
- Hess, K., De Raedt, H. and Michielsen, K. (2017) Journal of Modern Physics, 8, 57-67. https://doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2017.81005
- Bell, J.S. (1976) Epistemological Letters, 2, 2-7.
- Hess, K. (2019) Journal of Modern Physics, 10, 1209-1221. https://doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2019.1010080
- Hess, K. (2018) Journal of Modern Physics, 9, 1573-159. https://doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2018.98099
- Hess, K., Philipp, W. and Aschwanden, M. (1982) International Journal of Quantum Information, 4, 585-625. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219749906002080
- Khrennikov, A. (2008) Entropy, 10, 19-32. https://doi.org/10.3390/entropy-e10020019