A polarized beam of energy is usually interpreted as a set of particles, all having the same polarization state. Difference in behavior between the one and the other particle is then explained by a number of counter-i...A polarized beam of energy is usually interpreted as a set of particles, all having the same polarization state. Difference in behavior between the one and the other particle is then explained by a number of counter-intuitive quantum mechanical concepts like probability distribution, superposition, entanglement and quantized spin. Alternatively, I propose that a polarized beam is composed of a set of particles with a cosine distribution of polarization angles within a polarization area. I show that Malus’ law for the intensity of a beam of polarized light can be derived in a straightforward manner from this distribution. I then show that none of the above-mentioned counter-intuitive concepts are necessary to explain particle behavior and that the ontology of particles, passing through a polarizer, can be easily and intuitively understood. I conclude by formulating some questions for follow-up research.展开更多
A. Peres constructed an example of particles entangled in the state of spin singlet. He claimed to have obtained the CHSH inequality and concluded that the violation of this inequality shows that in a measurement in w...A. Peres constructed an example of particles entangled in the state of spin singlet. He claimed to have obtained the CHSH inequality and concluded that the violation of this inequality shows that in a measurement in which some variables are tested, other variables, not tested, have no defined value. In the present paper is proved that the correct conclusion of the violation of the CHSH inequality is different. It is proved that the classical calculus of probabilities of test results, obeying the Kolmogorov axioms, is unfit for the quantum formalism, dominated by probability amplitudes.展开更多
文摘A polarized beam of energy is usually interpreted as a set of particles, all having the same polarization state. Difference in behavior between the one and the other particle is then explained by a number of counter-intuitive quantum mechanical concepts like probability distribution, superposition, entanglement and quantized spin. Alternatively, I propose that a polarized beam is composed of a set of particles with a cosine distribution of polarization angles within a polarization area. I show that Malus’ law for the intensity of a beam of polarized light can be derived in a straightforward manner from this distribution. I then show that none of the above-mentioned counter-intuitive concepts are necessary to explain particle behavior and that the ontology of particles, passing through a polarizer, can be easily and intuitively understood. I conclude by formulating some questions for follow-up research.
文摘A. Peres constructed an example of particles entangled in the state of spin singlet. He claimed to have obtained the CHSH inequality and concluded that the violation of this inequality shows that in a measurement in which some variables are tested, other variables, not tested, have no defined value. In the present paper is proved that the correct conclusion of the violation of the CHSH inequality is different. It is proved that the classical calculus of probabilities of test results, obeying the Kolmogorov axioms, is unfit for the quantum formalism, dominated by probability amplitudes.
