Entanglement: A Contrarian View
Author(s)
A. F. Kracklauer
ABSTRACT
Entanglement is defined in terms of some kind of instantaneous interaction, contrary to the relativistic principle that all interaction is possible only at a velocity less than that of light. This conflict with an otherwise inviolate principle justifies re-examination of the arguments leading to its (ostensible) rejection. Herein the historically essential notion, namely wave-collapse by measurement or the “Projection Hypothesis” of von Neumann is brought to attention and seen to violate Popper’s Principle of negatability; thereby disqualifying it as a scientific proposition. Further, it is observed that polarization of electromagnetic signals as used in experiments testing Bell Inequalities is described by structure excluding quantum principles. Consequently, most experiments taken to verify Bell’s conclusions cannot in principle do so: a quantum effect cannot be found where there is no quantum structure. Finally, a simple simulation which demonstrates the classical (electromagnetic) generation of the data that violates a Bell Inequality, thereby proving by counterexample that Bell’s so-called theorem is misunderstood, is presented.
Entanglement is defined in terms of some kind of instantaneous interaction, contrary to the relativistic principle that all interaction is possible only at a velocity less than that of light. This conflict with an otherwise inviolate principle justifies re-examination of the arguments leading to its (ostensible) rejection. Herein the historically essential notion, namely wave-collapse by measurement or the “Projection Hypothesis” of von Neumann is brought to attention and seen to violate Popper’s Principle of negatability; thereby disqualifying it as a scientific proposition. Further, it is observed that polarization of electromagnetic signals as used in experiments testing Bell Inequalities is described by structure excluding quantum principles. Consequently, most experiments taken to verify Bell’s conclusions cannot in principle do so: a quantum effect cannot be found where there is no quantum structure. Finally, a simple simulation which demonstrates the classical (electromagnetic) generation of the data that violates a Bell Inequality, thereby proving by counterexample that Bell’s so-called theorem is misunderstood, is presented.
KEYWORDS
Entanglement, Nonlocality, Wave Collapse, Projection Hypotheses, Q-Bit Space, EPR-B Experiments, EPR Simulations, Quantum Mechanics, Hidden Variables
Entanglement, Nonlocality, Wave Collapse, Projection Hypotheses, Q-Bit Space, EPR-B Experiments, EPR Simulations, Quantum Mechanics, Hidden Variables
Cite this paper
Kracklauer, A. (2015) Entanglement: A Contrarian View. Journal of Modern Physics, 6, 1961-1968. doi: 10.4236/jmp.2015.613202.
Kracklauer, A. (2015) Entanglement: A Contrarian View. Journal of Modern Physics, 6, 1961-1968. doi: 10.4236/jmp.2015.613202.
References
[1] Greenstein, G. and Zajonc, A.G. (1997) The Quantum Challenge. Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Sudbury. [2] Schroedinger, E. (1935) Die gegenwärtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik (The Present Situation in Quantum Mechanics). Naturwissenschaften, 23, 887-812. [3] Einstein, A. (1948) Quantum Mechanics and Reality. Dialectica, 2, 320-324.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-8361.1948.tb00704.x [4] Kracklauer, A.F. (2002) Is Entanglement Always Entangled? Journal of Optics B: Quantum and Semiclassical Optics, 4, S121-S126. [5] Jaynes, E.T. (1989) Clearing up Mysteries: The Original Goal. In: Skilling, J., Ed., Maximum Entropy and Baysian Methods, Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht, 1-27. [6] Kracklauer, A.F. (2006) What’s Wrong with This Rebuttal. Foundations of Physics Letters, 19, 625-629.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10702-006-1016-3 [7] Kracklauer, A.F. (2007) Bell's Ansatz and Probability. Optics and Spectroscopy, 108, 451-458.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1134/S0030400X07090147 [8] Misrahi, S.S. and Moussa, M.H.Y. (1993) Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Correlations for Light Polarization. International Journal of Modern Physics B, 7, 1321-1330.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0217979293002341 [9] Kracklauer, A.F. (2015) What Is a Photon? Proc. of SPIE 9570, No. 21.
[1] Greenstein, G. and Zajonc, A.G. (1997) The Quantum Challenge. Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Sudbury. [2] Schroedinger, E. (1935) Die gegenwärtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik (The Present Situation in Quantum Mechanics). Naturwissenschaften, 23, 887-812. [3] Einstein, A. (1948) Quantum Mechanics and Reality. Dialectica, 2, 320-324.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-8361.1948.tb00704.x [4] Kracklauer, A.F. (2002) Is Entanglement Always Entangled? Journal of Optics B: Quantum and Semiclassical Optics, 4, S121-S126. [5] Jaynes, E.T. (1989) Clearing up Mysteries: The Original Goal. In: Skilling, J., Ed., Maximum Entropy and Baysian Methods, Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht, 1-27. [6] Kracklauer, A.F. (2006) What’s Wrong with This Rebuttal. Foundations of Physics Letters, 19, 625-629.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10702-006-1016-3 [7] Kracklauer, A.F. (2007) Bell's Ansatz and Probability. Optics and Spectroscopy, 108, 451-458.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1134/S0030400X07090147 [8] Misrahi, S.S. and Moussa, M.H.Y. (1993) Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Correlations for Light Polarization. International Journal of Modern Physics B, 7, 1321-1330.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0217979293002341 [9] Kracklauer, A.F. (2015) What Is a Photon? Proc. of SPIE 9570, No. 21.