This question expands on a specific detail of this previous question:

Why would classical correlation in Bell's experiment be a linear function of angle? I would have commented on/answered that question but I am not allowed to as I have just joined and this is my first question.

Question: Can the interpretation offered here to save locality be invalidated?

The first answer given to the question linked says

"Note that it is important that this is the probability to detect the quantum particle - if we were just talking about continuous field strength, as your projection argument would imply, the following probabilistic argument would not work. It is, however, experimentally shown that you indeed measure single incident photons."

So if we can show that a continuous field strength consideration is appropriate in the classical correlation, we can discount the probabilistic argument of Bell's Theorem.

Now it's true that we measure single incident photons experimentally, for example in the double-slit experiment; we fire single photons and get a wave-interference pattern, the same goes for single incident electrons. So we know that single incident particles over time produce (so far inexplicably) a wave interference pattern.

But wave-particle duality has never been argued to be a definitive rejection of locality. If it was, we wouldn't need to invoke Bell's experiment to reject locality.

So, might not the appearance of the cosine correlation in Bell's experiment be simply the manifestation of the wave-particle duality of the single incident particles? The single incident photons in Bell's experiment thus produce over time what appears to be a continuous field strength in keeping with a wave-like nature and so explaining the cosine relationship that we detect in the projection.

Thus couldn't Bell's experiment be nothing more than a demonstration of wave-particle duality and not a definitive rejection of locality?

| cite | improve this question | | | | |
  • $\begingroup$ I don't quite follow the argument tbh. If you use classical fields -- i.e. coherent light -- then you don't violate Bell's inequalities. Bell's theorem doesn't rely on quantum mechanics, it's a statement about probabilities, which doesn't need quantum mechanics to be stated. It just so happens that some quantum systems produce correlations that violate Bell's inequalities, hence disprove local realistic correlations. Is that what you are asking? $\endgroup$ – glS Mar 26 at 14:08
  • $\begingroup$ In essence I'm asking that, just as it appears from the double-slit experiment that single incident photons inexplicably effect each other to form a continuous wave pattern where one expects linearity, couldn't the single incident photons in Bells experiment also be effecting each other to produce a cosine correlation where one would predict linearity? If this is allowed, then Bell's experiment is a manifestation of the so far inexplicable double-slit experiment rather than a profound statement denying objective reality. $\endgroup$ – Adam322 Mar 26 at 22:36
  • $\begingroup$ I'm trying to get my head around why PRECISELY a cosine correlation is supposed to be ruled out by Einstein's locality/objectivity. It might not be what we expect, but then we still can't explain the outcome of the double-slit experiment. $\endgroup$ – Adam322 Mar 26 at 22:45
  • $\begingroup$ We didn't throw out objectivity after the double-slit experiment, we just threw our hands up and honestly said "We don't know yet." $\endgroup$ – Adam322 Mar 26 at 22:48
  • $\begingroup$ (you need to tag me in a comment otherwise I don't get notified and probably won't see it) Yes, Bell inequalities violations are due to the same mechanism producing double-slit interference, that is, quantum interference. Also, it's not that locality rules out a "cosine correlation" in particular. It rules out a set of correlations, and it just so happens that the "cosine correlation" can produce correlations outside the set allowed by locality. $\endgroup$ – glS Apr 1 at 10:31

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.