After 5 years of exposing the weaknesses of the Bell theorem and showing semi-quantum cryptology solutions, I have noticed 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:
- 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.
- That is possible. Note that in an experience, when one of the assumptions is not fulfilled, its results become invalid.
- 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 very kind, no experiment has been able to achieve a pairs detection rate higher than 50% with a double detector. See Laboratory Performance.
- You’re right, me too ! But here, the subject is not so interesting for ambitious physicists, the experiences are at least questionable, there is not a real 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 by the simple presence of a classical potential barrier?
Parsimony and Ockham are my friend.