by gill1109 » Fri Nov 04, 2022 1:54 am
Do not forget the paper by Dean Mamas and my refutation thereof,
https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.01068
Comment on: Bell tests explained by classical optics without quantum entanglement
Richard D. Gill
In a paper published in the journal Physics Essays in 2021, the author D.L. Mamas writes "A polarized photon interacts with a polarizer through the component of the photon's electric field which is aligned with the polarizer. This component varies as the cosine of the angle through which the polarizer is rotated, explaining the cosine observed in Bell test data. Quantum mechanics is unnecessary and plays no role". Mamas is right that according to this physical model, one will observe a negative cosine. However, the amplitude of the cosine curve is 50%, not 100%, and it consequently does not violate any Bell-CHSH inequality. Mamas' physical model is a classic local hidden variables model. The result is illustrated with a Monte Carlo simulation.
There is a discussion of Mamas' paper on PubPeer.
@Esail, I suggest you also publish a computer simulation version of your model. This can greatly help to clarify your ideas. It also enables you to prove that your theoretical calculations are correct, provided your computer programming is transparent enough. There is nothing wrong with computing an integral numerically through Monte Carlo (up to any required degree of accuracy).
[quote=Esail post_id=903 time=1665666074 user_id=71]
Do not forget the paper
"On a contextual model refuting Bell's theorem"
[url]https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1209/0295-5075/134/10004[/url]
It clearly states there is no spooky action at a distance needed to explain the EPR correlations
[/quote]
Do not forget the paper by Dean Mamas and my refutation thereof, https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.01068
Comment on: Bell tests explained by classical optics without quantum entanglement
Richard D. Gill
In a paper published in the journal Physics Essays in 2021, the author D.L. Mamas writes "A polarized photon interacts with a polarizer through the component of the photon's electric field which is aligned with the polarizer. This component varies as the cosine of the angle through which the polarizer is rotated, explaining the cosine observed in Bell test data. Quantum mechanics is unnecessary and plays no role". Mamas is right that according to this physical model, one will observe a negative cosine. However, the amplitude of the cosine curve is 50%, not 100%, and it consequently does not violate any Bell-CHSH inequality. Mamas' physical model is a classic local hidden variables model. The result is illustrated with a Monte Carlo simulation.
There is a discussion of Mamas' paper on PubPeer.
@Esail, I suggest you also publish a computer simulation version of your model. This can greatly help to clarify your ideas. It also enables you to prove that your theoretical calculations are correct, provided your computer programming is transparent enough. There is nothing wrong with computing an integral numerically through Monte Carlo (up to any required degree of accuracy).
