### Bell’s Inequality: The weirdest theorem in the world Nobel Prize 2022

The title of the following podcast shows the authors do not understand much about Bell.

This video is fundamentally flawed and should be retracted. The first huge error, which is a major misconception in the general community and that this video perpetuates, is Bell’s Inequalities are the same as Bell’s Theorem. They are entirely different. The inequalities are merely a classical development based upon a few assumptions and have nothing to do with quantum mechanics.

Bell’s theorem is, in Bell’s own words, “If [a hidden-variable theory] is local it will not agree with quantum mechanics, and if it agrees with quantum mechanics it will not be local”.

Bell’s theorem was derived by Bell to understand the violation of his inequalities by QM. He used a metaphor of the frequent washing of Bertlmann’s socks—purely classical notions—to derive his theorem. Bell concluded that non-local connectivity exists between Alice and Bob.

However:

The commentator says that Bell only assumed local realism: wrong, he also assumed only two outcomes of +/-1. Why might this be wrong? Those outcomes may ONLY be present when the spins are filtered and not before.

Why would one think +/-1 exists when spin is not measured? Even the commentator asks this: does a tree make a noise if no ears are present? Is the moon there when you do not look? Bell’s big mistake is his assumption that +/-1 exist on the spins from source to filter.

Groundbreaking she says!!! Not at all, entanglement has been around since Schrodinger defined it in 1933 and non-locality since Bell’s theorem in the ‘60’s.

CHSH is not a theorem, it’s a modification of Bell’s inequalities to make them more amenable to measurement.

Finally, after praising the justification of non-local entanglement, she (along with Clauser, Aspect and Zeilinger) all say they do not fully understand non-locality and it is weird. Indeed, non-locality is weird because it makes no sense, is spooky and is a very shaky basis to rest billions of dollars of research on. Those in IBM who scripted this should trust their physical intuition and not accept Bell’s Theorem if it they think it is weird. They should find the reason it does not make sense: the usual reason something makes no sense is it is incorrect.

She talks about teleportation but look at equation 4 of IBM’s Bennett’s paper in 1992. Longuet-Higgins established long ago that if a mathematical operation is not physically feasible, it does not happen. Entanglement swapping over spacetime is not a feasible operation (it is weird) and cannot be justified. Hence the whole Bennett paper is flawed, as is the concept of non-locality.

Even if IBM scientists believe in non-local weirdness, this video is naïve, poorly scripted, and even gets the party line wrong.

Although the three Laureates are renown excellent experimentalists, their conclusion that non-locality is a property of Nature is too premature to justify the Nobel Prize.

I paste a letter below from Andre Vatarescu to the Nobel Prize committee.

To Prof. Eva Olsson eva.olsson@chalmers.se

An Open Letter to the Nobel Prize Committee in Physics

While the three physicists deserve credit for performing experiments with entangled photons, their interpretations of the experiments do not stand up to physical scrutiny in so far as single photons are concerned.

A single photon cannot propagate in a straight-line inside a dielectric medium because of the quantum Rayleigh scattering associated with photon-dipole interactions. Groups of photons are created through parametric amplification in the nonlinear crystal in which spontaneous emissionsfirst occur.

The rebuttal of the concept of quantum nonlocality has seen a growing body of analytic work which the legacy journals have chosen to ignore. A short list of analytic articles indicating the physical impossibility of quantum nonlocality based on entangled photons can be found below:

[1] Griffiths, R. B., “Nonlocality claims are inconsistent with Hilbert-space quantum mechanics”, 2020, Phys. Rev. A 101, 022117..

[2] Tipler, F. J., “Quantum nonlocality does not exist,” 2014, PNAS 111 (31), 11281-11286, doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1324238111

[3] Hess, K., “What Do Bell-Tests Prove? A Detailed Critique of Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt Including Counterexamples”, 2021, J. Mod. Physics, 12, 1219-1236.

[4] Boughn, S., “Making Sense of Bell’s Theorem and Quantum Nonlocality”, 2017, Found. Phys., 47, 640- 657.

[5] Khrennikov, A., “Get Rid of Nonlocality from Quantum Physics “, 2019, Entropy, 21, 806-815..

[6] Kupczynski, M., “Closing the Door on Quantum Nonlocality”, 2018, Entropy, 20, 877-890.

[7] Vatarescu, A., “Polarimetric Quantum-Strong Correlations with Independent Photons on the Poincare Sphere”, /www.preprints.org/manuscript/202202.0073/v4

Consequently, the award for entangled photons is highly questionable in terms of fundamental physics and possible applications.

Written by:

Andre Vatarescu, PhD Canberra, Australia

## 2 replies on “Nobel prize for quantum weirdness.”

Bryan, one of the predictions of quantum mechanics in the EPR-B model is that the outcomes are +/-1. You have not disproved Bell’s theorem. You have simply moved the goal posts.

You cite Andre Vatarescu and copy his list of references. Andrei Khrennikov does not disagree with Bell. Marian Kupczynski makes mathematical errors. This means that Vatarescu is not very reliable.

agree, I have not disproved Bell’s theorem because it is not applicable to my theory, besides, I do not violate Bell but I do account for all the correlation.