Mathematical-Proof Bell’s Inequality is Incorrect, which overturns the 2022 Nobel Prize for Physics!

Mathematical-Proof Bell’s Inequality is Incorrect, which overturns the 2022 Nobel Prize for Physics!

[tuckquest]

When you send most Entangled-Photons through the Polarizers it is true that you get one of 8-different results. Either the Photons will go through or be blocked 100% (which is SSS for Same in both cases) or the the comparison will be the same 1/3rd. It is important to recognize that each result is a comparison between the state of the photon’s passing-through because an Inequality is a Comparison where the Same-State >= 1/3. The Physicists believe that the Inequality must be 1/3 or greater because every possibility is either 33% or 100%. How can measurements between the Entangled-Photons be 0.25 unless the Photons are somehow sharing-information information because this looks like a statistical-anomaly?

Something important is that when you take an Average of the measurements, you get 50% since ((1 + 0.33 + 0.33 + 0.33 + 0.33 + 0.33 + 0.33 + 1) / 8) = 0.5 = 50%. That is equivalent to the probability of a coin-toss landing on Heads or Tails. The thing about a Coin-Toss is that the probability of getting 2-Heads or 2-Tails in a row is 25%. The equation is 0.5^#_of_coin_tosses. You expect that while the probability of the coin landing on Heads or Tails is 50% each time, probability of 2-successive Heads or Tails (in a row) is 25% since 0.5^2 = 0.25. An Inequality is a comparison between 2-successive states. That means that it should be equal to 25%. It’s not an Anomaly. It is the expected result based-upon the mathematics of Classical-Mechanics.

There is no Spooky-Action at a distance. Neither Locality or Counterfactual-Definiteness has to be violated because for over 50-years Bell’s Inequality was based-upon Faulty-Logic.

[ydxpdjk]

Background music is very much annoying . It should be removed .

[suulix]

As a layman, I don’t *quite* understand, BUT I wish you the best of luck in your endeavor! Thanks for the video and explanation 😁✌️

[feralmath]

There are certainly many more measures taken and analyzed over the range of differing angles between polarizers, giving what is determined to be anomalous distributions. What is important is that you know in the back of your head that something isn't quite right. Keep pursuing that nag inside your head and make sure that if you find yourself in a place where you are prepared to accept the stated results and move on, that it is you, and you alone, that has convinced yourself and never crush and overlay that nag with someone else's reasoning. There are other possible avenues to explain a means by which the reasoning is flawed and they should be pursued toward resolution without drawing conclusions in the first place. It is remarkable that an industry has flourished over decades based on accepting the results as a true reflection of nature when the explanation of the basis and justifications for the conclusions continue to set off people's spidey sense. Another plain observation is that if spin/polarization states follow any distribution other than a linear dependence on the angle of incidence of the axis being measured, the probabilities at a given angle will not follow the expectation values computed via the assumed linear dependence. For example, the presumption that there are states of polarization that will/would pass through all 3 filters or that would be blocked by all 3. Why should this be so? Vertical and horizontal orientations of a polarizer are orthogonal in the sense that one passes and one blocks - always. In the referenced example, the 2 diagonally oriented filters are orthogonal, so why should it be so that there exists states of polarization that can pass through, or be blocked, by all three polarizers? In the referenced experiment, only 2 filters are selected for each trial. We never measure that the ooo or xxx states actually exist/occur. But more to the point, if such states did exist, they would register to us as one of oox, oxo, or xoo for the alleged ooo state and as xxo, xox, or oxx for the alleged xxx state. If the triple states do not exist, the probabilities are off. If they do exist, they are measured and added in to the cases where we measure one of the 6 alternate states of oox, oxo, xoo, xxo, xox, oxx. So, assuming a linear relation as we go around the spin axis, would suggest the odds of any given case are given fully by just the six cases in the middle, resulting in a probability of 1/6 for each. But, for orthogonal filters, we cannot have the situation where one passes and the other does not. Filters 2 and 3 are orthogonal, so we might suspect that maybe states 4 & 5 do not happen at all, leaving states 2, 3, 6 & 7 as the only states we actually measure, each with a 1/4 probability of being measured. There are obvious issues with that reasoning, that is not the point. The point is there are also obvious issues with the interpretation that has been embraced. Why even stop and embrace one issue-ridden explanation in favor of other issue-ridden explanations? Why not continue to juggle and juxtapose them against each other until an actual explanation shakes out of the mix? Well, industry. Math and physics can be confusing and tax the synapses, but industry is well understood in black and white. If you start with the assumption that Nobel prizes are not given to people because of the merits of their scientific achievements, perhaps that leads to a black and white understanding, but not of the science behind the observations. That's O.K. in as much as it widens the opportunity for a person to discover truth because those tasked with and paid to discover the truth have become mired in the industry of it all and have stopped pursuing the more elusive explanation in favor of total, unquestioning acceptance of the thing that pays the bills. Do not quash your nag - let it get to work on sussing out what is really going on. The worst that can happen is that you find out that the proposed explanation was right all along, but at least you now know why and can help others to resolve their nags.

[tuckquest]

For a more in-depth look at the Mathematics of Bell’s Inequality and the experiment of the EPR-Paradox look at his video from DrPhysicsA: