Most frequent counter-arguments

After 5 years of exposing the weaknesses of the Bell theorem and showing semi-quantum cryptography solutions, I have noticed these statements among the most frequent:

  • The simulation is false
    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 fair. Or try with 6 operators , a protocol where you keep the control on all the exchanged data using files.
  • The simulation is not physical
    That is possible. Whatever the counter exemple is physical or not, it brings a doubt on the possibility to observe non intuitive but physical quantum-like correlations. Then, the conclusion that the shape in cosĀ² is a quantum signature becomes difficult.
  • Yes, it is normal that one can simulate up to 75% but then, QM finishes the job , making the remaining 25%
    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?
  • The experiments showed a detection rate of 92% ; the simulation is below, around a small 75%
    No, it is wrong. To remain very kind, no one experiment has been able to achieve a pairs detection rate higher than 50% with a double detector. See Laboratory Performance
    .
  • You know, the theories that say that everyone is wrong, even very great physics teachers, I do not spend my time with …
    You’re right, me too ! But here, if the subject is not so interesting for ambitious physicists, the experiences are at least questionable. There is not a real negative impact on other researches, then all is possible.

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?

Parsimony and Occam are my friends.

Be the first to review

Leave a Review

Your email address will not be published.