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.

Highlights

  • It is demonstrated that the suggestion of instantaneous influences at a distance 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

  • The experimental results contradict the Bell-Wigner inequalities, a contradiction that has led to the common belief that instantaneous influences at a distance are at work in experiments of entangled quantum “entities” and that Einstein’s separation principle derived from the speed c of light in vacuum is violated in EPR as proposed by Bohm (EPRB) experiments

  • A main difference between quantum and Kolmogorov probability concepts has been pinpointed in the treatment of such subsets of the data for measurement outcomes

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The experimental results contradict the Bell-Wigner inequalities, a contradiction that has led to the common belief that instantaneous influences at a distance are at work in experiments of entangled quantum “entities” (photons, electrons etc.) and that Einstein’s separation principle derived from the speed c of light in vacuum is violated in EPRB experiments. That statistical inference is invariably based on the violation of the Bell-Wigner type of inequalities It will be shown in great detail below that the commonly used logic of applying Bell-Wigner-type inequalities to actual EPRB experiments and/or the results of quantum mechanics would not be allowed in Divinity because of a variety of reasons that uncover serious inaccuracies of epistemological, physical and mathematical nature. Hess measurement outcomes as opposed to interpretations regarding individual entangled pairs

EPRB Experiments and Notation
Bell’s Functions and Their Relation to Einstein’s Separation Principle
Problems with Bell’s Function-Domain
Problems with Bell’s Function-Range
Bell Type Inequalities and Algebra
Bell Inequalities and Probability Spaces
Alice and Bob to the Rescue
The Importance of Subset Selection and the Problem with Random Switching
10. Explicit Statistical Interpretation and Model for EPRB
Findings
11. Conclusions

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.