Authors: Krishan Vats
This is a statistical analysis of the experimental data used in a recent paper [Lynden K. Shalm et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 250402 - Published 16 December 2015 at http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.250402. The data for this analysis has been made available by the authors at http://pml.nist.gov/belldata/belldata+processed_compressed+hdf5.html in hdf5 format. This article is not meant in any way to comment upon the originally published findings of the experiment. Abstract – Till date, all experiments prove non-locality of entanglement based upon overall statistical correlations and thus demonstrating that Bell’s inequality is violated. No detailed data analysis has been published yet. This article presents detailed data analysis of its kind and it indicates that there is a real chance that non-local entanglement may not exist. This is a huge claim by any means. But it is necessary to make such dramatic claim due to two reasons – 1) It is based upon experimental data and can be tested and verified. 2) So that the QM community makes an effort to analyze detailed data to scrutinize the locality of entanglement. This is second experiment that gives such an indication. The first of this kind data analysis was conducted on another recent experiment data and the observation is posted at http://vixra.org/abs/1609.0237. Due to large amount of data involved, experimentalists only analyze data at aggregate level and do not scrutinize the raw data in full detail. When data of this experiment was analyzed at detail level, it was observed that non-locality of entanglement can not be settled until this kind of analysis is completed on data from multiple such experiments. The natural and prompt reaction from many may be to look for faults with this analysis without presenting the evidence that such analysis has already been completed. For curious people, observation is odd enough to be probed further. The complacent ones will look only for the faults, but those who welcome scrutiny, will challenge it with evidence and/or their own analysis at this detailed level. All sound theories welcome scrutiny and refute it with evidence. This article does not claim “classical mechanics” to be the solution. Quantum Mechanics predictions are correct in terms of averages. This analysis indicates that the statistical correlation percent of entanglement may be guided/balanced by some real/local mechanism rather than being independently probabilistic and spooky. It presents an intuitive mechanism that can explain statistical correlations without entanglement being non-local or entanglement being defined in a different way then it currently is. The scope of this article is only statistical data. Anti correlation (Bell’s state, when measured in the same angle) is always true, therefore it is not statistical in nature and is left out of scope. Moreover perfect anti correlation can easily be explained as a direct consequence of conservation laws. In fact, perfect anti correlation is a big red flag to the probabilistic nature. There is no such thing as zero, or one probability. Zero or one probability would actually be a law, not probability. So, perfect anti correlation itself indicates that the outcomes of entanglement can not be probabilistic, they have to be governed by law, not probability. If some balancing mechanism is found to exist then (in terms of magnitude), it really operates within probabilistic limits thereby making it very difficult to differentiate it from probabilistic nature. Therefore a detailed data analysis on many such experiments is necessary to rule it in/out. In fact it would require special experiments for its independent investigation. This can also explain why the correlations have been considered probabilistic for such a long history. Therefore, this type of experimental investigation is a must in order to conclude existence/nonexistence of non-local entanglement.
Comments: 9 Pages.
[v1] 2016-11-10 20:05:58
Unique-IP document downloads: 19 times
Add your own feedback and questions here:
You are equally welcome to be positive or negative about any paper but please be polite. If you are being critical you must mention at least one specific error, otherwise your comment will be deleted as unhelpful.