What Do Bell-Tests Prove? A Detailed Critique of Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt Including Counterexamples
- 1 Center for Advanced Study, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, USA
Abstract
Many future directions of scientific endeavors depend on quantum theory and the precise interpretation and significance of the entanglement of quantum-particles. This interpretation depends in turn on the physical meaning of so called Bell-tests that are mostly performed using entangled photons and randomly switched polarizers to measure their polarization at distant locations. This paper presents a detailed critique of the well known theory of Bell tests given by Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH). It is demonstrated that several important steps of the CHSH derivations contain serious inaccuracies of the underlying physics and probability theory and even a calculus error. As a consequence, the Bell-CHSH theory cannot be used to demonstrate extreme and opposite interpretations of entanglement such as super-luminal influences or alternatively super-determinism that cast aspersions on Einstein’s concepts of locality and separability.
- Kocher, C.A. and Commins, E.D. (1967) Polarization Correlation of Photons Emitted in an Atomic Cascade. Physical Review Letters, 18, 575-577. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.18.575
- Nordén, B. (2016) Quantum Entanglement: Facts and Fiction—How Wrong Was Einstein after All. QRB Discovery, 49, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033583516000111
- Aspect, A., Dalibard, J. and Roger, J. (1982) Experimental Test of Bell’s Inequalities Using Time-Varying Analyzers. Physical Review Letters, 49, 1804-1807. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.49.1804
- Rauch, D., et al. (2018) Cosmic Bell Test Using Random Measurement Settings from High-Redshift Quasars. Physical Review Letters, 121, Article ID: 080403. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.080403
- The Big Bell Test Collaboration (2018) Challenging Local Realism with Human Choices. Nature, 557, 212-216. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0085-3
- Clauser, J.F., Horne, M.A., Shimony, A. and Holt, R.A. (1969) Proposed Experiment to Test Local Hidden-Variable Theories. Physical Review Letters, 23, 880-884. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.23.880
- Vorob’ev, N.N. (1962) Consistent Families of Measures and Their Extension. Theory of Probability and Its Applications, 7, 147-163. https://doi.org/10.1137/1107014
- Khrennikov, A. and Alodjants, A. (2019) Classical (Local and Contextual) Probability Model for Bohm-Bell Type Experimants: No-Signaling as Independence of Random Variables. Entropy, 21, 157. https://doi.org/10.3390/e21020157
- Khrennikov, A. (2020) Has the CHSH-Inequality Any Relation to the EPR-Argument? Quantum Bio-Informatics, 5, 87-92. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789811217838_0008
- Wigner, E.P. (1970) On Hidden Variables and Quantum Mechanical Probabilities. American Journal of Physics, 38, 1005-1009. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1976526
- d’Espagnat, B. (1979) The Quantum Theory and Reality. Scientific American, 241, 158-181. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1179-158
- Hess, K. (2018) Bell’s Theorem and Instantaneous Influences at a Distance. Journal of Modern Physics, 9, 1573-1590. https://doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2018.98099
- Hess, K. (2020) Kolmogorov’s Probability Spaces for “Entangled” Data-Subsets of EPRB Experiments: No Violation of Einstein’s Separation Principle. Journal of Modern Physics, 11, 683-702. https://doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2020.115044