After 5 years of exposing the weaknesses of the Bell theorem and showing semi-quantum cryptology solutions, I have noted these statements among the most frequent:
- The simulation is false
- The simulation is not physical
- Yes, it is normal that one can simulate up to 75% but then, QM finishes the job , making the remaining 25%
- The experiments showed a detection rate of 92% ; the simulation is below, around a small 75%
- You know, the theories that say that everyone is wrong, even very great physics teachers, I do not spend my time with …
My generic answers:
- Try with 6 operators if you cannot check the code and see that it does not perform any non-local calculations in the polarizer response, the random variables are credible and the statistics are fair.
- That is possible. I propose to work on experiences to invalidate physical relevance. To do this, it will be necessary to show that the detection rate is constant whatever the orientation difference and whatever the overall attenuation of the optoelectronic measurement acquisition circuit. For the time being, the available data are too poor for this analysis.
- This is an explanation difficult to understand. How one pair out of four finds itself quantum and the other three classics with hidden variables? What path leads exactly to this particular interpretation?
- No, it is wrong. To remain kind, no experience has been able to achieve a pairs detection rate higher than 50% with a double detector. See Laboratory Performance.
- Nobody is wrong. Only the conclusions of our great experts are credible. But I would try to convince them. There are formulas, curves, a program, an online test. Many speakers have used this kind of evidence by describing it precisely; their lack of existence was a preliminary before chaining on new physics. Physics is not a matter of dogma; gamovian algorithms should at least intrigue, especially when they are performing.
Sean Caroll recently quoted a survey giving the deBroglie-Bohm interpretation at 0% and that of Bohr at 42%.
The good question to ask is: would you have believed in Bohr’s Copenhagen interpretation and would you have endorsed its consequences if you had known that there are local algorithms, computer programs, to reproduce the best labs outcomes as described here, at the cost of a modulation of the detections by a conventional potential barrier?
Parsimony and ockham are my friend.