In https://file.scirp.org/pdf/OPJ_2016111414355792.pdf, a Bell test using circularly-polarized photons is reported. The data shows that coincidences happen in the reverse handedness predicted by quantum mechanics, i.e. The mean probability of the two photons having the same circular polarization has been 13.7% instead of about %85.

Does this contradict QM and Bell's theorem, or this result is still compatible with QM and impossibility of local hidden variables?


closed as off-topic by Kyle Kanos, Chris, Jon Custer, JMac, GiorgioP Apr 25 at 20:36

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "We deal with mainstream physics here. Questions about the general correctness of unpublished personal theories are off topic, although specific questions evaluating new theories in the context of established science are usually allowed. For more information, see Is non mainstream physics appropriate for this site?." – Kyle Kanos, Chris
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • $\begingroup$ Please add context and information so as to make your question self-contained, so people don’t to read a 9-page paper. $\endgroup$ – ZeroTheHero Jan 27 at 3:25
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is asking in essence for a review of the paper in question. $\endgroup$ – Jon Custer Apr 25 at 13:16

This is too long for a comment and doesn’t provide a direct answer to your question but consider:

  1. Scientific Research Publishing is very probably a predatory publisher. The Wiki article highlights some controversies which do not give much confindence in papers published there.
  2. The bibliography of said paper is by no means comprehensive and overlooks other classic experimental results, v.g. Weihs, Gregor, et al. "Violation of Bell's inequality under strict Einstein locality conditions." Physical Review Letters 81.23 (1998): 5039 or Hensen, Bas, et al. "Loophole-free Bell inequality violation using electron spins separated by 1.3 kilometres." Nature 526.7575 (2015): 682. Both of these papers have accumulated over 1000 GoogleScholar citations, whereas the one you refer to has apparently received none: if the result had been of significance it would be cited.
  3. Note that this type of result is usually published in prime-time journals, as exemplified by the previous papers.
  4. Note how quickly the paper was accepted after submission, apparently without revisions, raising concerns about the thoroughness of the refereeing process,
  5. Note that this type of work is usually done in teams
  6. A GoogleScholar search of this author reveals lots of patents but very little in peer-reviewed publications in top journals.

Conclusion: don’t waste your time on this: if it had any value it wouldn’t be published where it was.


Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.