- #36
Caroline Thompson
- 95
- 0
See Appendix C of my paper at http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9903066. The basic LR (classical optics) prediction is in fact very close to Aspect's raw data, not adjusted by subtraction of accidentals, at least in his first experiment. It differs markedly from the quantum theoretical prediction and from the published (adjusted) data, but, as you may have realized, I and other local realists challenge the legitimacy of the subtraction. As far as I know, even quantum theorists (in particular, Wolfgang Tittel and his team at Geneva) now agree with me.DrChinese said:... if you can get classical optics to yield a different prediction for Aspect-like correlation percentages, go for it.
Right, but this is for two polarisers "in series". In the Bell test experiments we have two polarisers "in parallel". It is only in the very special case when all the light is polarised in the same direction that classical optics and QM agree.None of the above affects the fact that all extant tests support the predictions of QM, or that the QM formula [tex]cos^2[/tex] is the same applied in classical optics in cases in which polarized light is passed through a second polarizer.
No DrChinese, I'm afraid you've got this all wrong! I don't know what makes you think classical optics is not a LR theory. Bell originally talked only of spin-1/2 particles, not light, so naturally the local realist model he considered was slightly different from the one applicable to light. He assumed, for instance, that when a particle is detected, it must be + or - (though later he added the possibility of zero). It could never be "both + and -". In classical optics, both + and - simultaneously is perfectly possible.As to who originally pointed out that LR and classical optics were at odds, I see that as being Bell. Before Bell, the LR prediction was [tex]cos^2[/tex] matching classical optics. After Bell, the LR predicted value changed (to something that no LRist is willing to stand behind).
It might help if you checked out my wikipedia page on hidden variable theories: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_hidden_variable_theory
The basic LR theory for Bell's spin-1/2 particles yields a zig-zag prediction, whilst the basic one for an experiment using polarised light yields a sine curve but shifted upwards, so that it no longer has full visibility.
Caroline
http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/
Last edited by a moderator: