Top page. ← 6/30/2024

Quantum computer is hoax.

Quantum information is pseudo-science.

*(Fig.1) Entanglement means just preparing two lights with the same polarization in the case below, No quantum spooky action.*

Contrary to an incredible amount of hyped news, quantum entanglement and
teleportation are meaningless **useless** concepts sending No information or doing No work ( this 2nd-last-paragraph, this 2nd-last-paragraph ).

Sending real useful information always needs ordinary classical communication channel ( this last-paragraph ), so quantum entanglement sending Nothing is scientifically unnecessary and meaningless.

In the upper figure, a light source is set to emit two lights with the same polarization in the opposite directions toward Alice and Bob.

When Alice detects the vertically-polarized light (= V ), Bob detects the same vertically-polarized light (= V ).

When Alice detects the horizontally-polarized light (= H ), Bob detects the same horizontally-polarized light (= H, this p.2, this 2nd-last-paragraph ).

↑ Unlike the misleading media, there is No spooky action. this is quite a natural (= classical ) thing, because this light source is artificially set to always emit a pair of lights (= or photons ) with the same polarization (= VV or HH ).

But quantum mechanics ridiculously insists, when Alice detects the light with vertical (or horizontal ) polarization, some spooky superluminal entanglement signal travels from Alice to Bob instantly, and makes Bob's light vertically- (or horizontally- ) polarized, too ( this p.5, this 4~7th-paragraphs ).

See this 4th-paragraph, this p.4.

Actually there is No spooky entanglement action.

↑ This quantum entanglement is a meaningless illusory concept sending No real information or doing No work.

Because Bob (or Alice ) cannot know what polarization is the other distant light going toward the distant Alice (or Bob ), until Alice and Bob communicate (= talk ) with each other by ordinary classical methods like telephone (= No superluminal information transfer ) about what polarization they detected.

Quantum mechanics unscientifically insists that two alleged entangled lights in the upper case are in the (imaginary) quantum superposition, a dead-and-alive cat or parallel worlds ( this 3~4th-paragraphs, this 3rd-paragraph ) having different polarizations simultaneously.

It means these two entangled lights are in two superposed parallel-world states of both lights having vertical polarization (= VV ) and both lights having horizontal polarization (= HH ) at the same time, until measurement ( this p.2-left ).

But we can**not** observe these imaginary quantum superposition states or parallel universes.

We can observe or measure only one **single** state or single world ( this 4~5th-paragraphs, this 4~5th-paragraphs ).

So there is **No** evidence of quantum superposition, parallel worlds or entanglement.

To generate a pair of entangled polarized photons (= just classical light ), the method called spontaneous parametric down-conversion (= SPDC ) is used.

In SPDC, when one laser light (or one fictitious photon ) enters a special crystal called BBO (= type-1 ), it emits a pair of the same polarized lights ( this p.5 ).

↑ This pair of polarized lights is emitted from random atoms inside this crystal, and each atom's orientation is random (= which atom inside a crystal emits a pair of lights is random ).

So the polarization of this pair of lights is randomly-oriented (= unpolarized, this p.4c ), but these two lights always have the same polarization parallel to each other ( this p.9, this p.7-8 ).

It means when one light has vertical polarization, the other light always has vertical polarization.

When one light has horizontal polarization, the other light always has horizontal polarization.

This is a realistic mechanism using classical light in (fictional) quantum entangled photon pairs.

*(Fig.2) when Alice detects horizontally-polarized light (= H ), Bob detects vertically-polarized light (= V ). ← No spooky entanglement. *

In the upper figure, the light source (= type 2 ) is set to emit a pair of lights or photons with polarizations perpendicular to each other from the incident laser light or one incident photon ( this p.4-Figure 1 ).

↑ One (rigid) indivisible photon particle cannot split into two or multiple photon particles, so these sources of the alleged entangled photons use ordinary **divisible classical** light wave.

↑ Atoms inside light sources are set to emit a pair of light waves with mutually-orthogonal polarizations. and each atomic orientation is random, so the polarizations of the emitted lights point in the random direction (= except that polarizations of a pair of two lights emitted from the same atom are perpendicular to each other ).

In this light source emitting two lights or photons with mutually-orthogonal polarizations, when Alice detects horizontally-polarized light (= H ), Bob detects vertically-polarized light (= V ).

When Alice detects vertically-polarized light (= V ), Bob detects horizontally-polarized light (= H ), which they call "entanglement".

↑ **No** quantum spooky action. This is just a natural (= classical ) thing.

But quantum mechanics unscientifically insists when Alice detects vertically-polarized light, it immediately influences and changes the distant Bob's polarization into horizontal polarization by spooky superluminal entanglement action, which quantum superluminal action is physically **impossible** ( this 2nd-paragraph, this 3rd-paragraph, this 3rd-paragraph ).

In 1982, Alain Aspect showed that in the test of Bell entanglement theory, the Bell inequality (CHSH) which should satisfy local realism was violated using the alleged entangled photons, and claimed that it indicated the existence of the **faster-than-light** entanglement link between two photons.

We can explain this illusory superluminal quantum entanglement by ordinary classical light wave (+ photodetector's detection threshold ) with No spooky action in Bell theorem or Bell CHSH (= Clauser, Horne, Shimony and Holt ) inequality violation.

*(Fig.3) Two entangled light pairs → measurement (= BSM ) of two lights' polarizations → two distant lights' polarizations are entangled (= when one light is horizontally-polarized, the other distant light is also horizontally-polarized ) ? ← entanglement is a meaningless concept.*

In the upper figure, two light sources A and B are set to emit pairs of photons or weak lights with polarizations perpendicular to each other (= in each pair, one light has vertical polarization, and the other light has horizontal polarization ).

When the photodetectors in the middle detect two lights ② (from A ) and ③ ( from B ) with the same polarization (= vertical-vertical polarization in upper case ), two remaining lights (= ① from A and ④ from B ) also have the same polarization (= horizontal-horizontal lights in the upper case ).

↑ Quantum mechanics ridiculously insists two lights with polarizations perpendicular to each other (= ① and ② from light source-A, or ③ and ④ from light source-B ) are linked by (illusory) superluminal entanglement.

And when two lights ② and ③ are measured in the middle photodetectors (= called Bell-state measurement of BSM ) to have the same polarization (= vertical-vertical ), this measurement instantly determines the polarizations of two remaining distant lights ① and ④ as the same (= horizontal-horizontal ) via quantum superluminal entanglement. ← ridiculous.

This is called "entanglement swapping ( this p.6 )"

As seen here, quantum entanglement, which **neither** sends real information nor does any work to other distant light or photon, is a meaningless concept.

Real information such as light's polarizations must be communicated by ordinary classical methods such as telephones.

*(Fig.4) Applying some light wave making two atomic energy states the same (ex ground-state-ground states = 00 ) has nothing to do with quantum spooky entanglement link.*

Physicists often try to use the lowest-energy ground-state (= 0 ) and the excited-state (= 1 ) of each atom, ion, artificial atom (= just classical superconducting circuit ), quantum dot as a quantum bit or a qubit's state of 0 or 1.

By applying light wave with some wavelength, this atomic energy levels are changing between the ground state (0) and excited state (1).

Physicists tend to use the word "entanglement", when they changed two or multiple atoms into some correlated energy states, though it has **nothing** to do with spooky link or entanglement.

For example, when they shine light, and change two atoms (or two ions ) into the same energy states = both of two atoms are in the ground states (= 00 ), or both of two atoms are in the excited states (= 11 ), they call it "entangled atoms" or "superposition (Bell) state of |00⟩ +|11⟩ ( this p.2 )".

↑ This entangled superposition state of |00⟩ +|11⟩ means two atoms-1 and 2 are in the same ground-ground states (= 00 ) or in the same excited-excited states (= 11 ), but which state of 00 or 11 these two atoms take is unknown until physicists measure atomic states.

This has **nothing** to do with quantum spooky entanglement or a dead-and-alive cat superposition.

When they shine light and change two atomic states into |00⟩+|11⟩, it means when one atom is measured to be in the ground state (= 0 ), and the other atom is also measured to be in the ground state (= 1 ), or vice versa.

↑ So quantum entanglement is just illuminating atoms with some light and changing the atoms into some energy states. That's all.

In the upper figure, Two entangled atomic |01⟩+|10⟩ states contain two cases: one case is atom-1 in the ground state (= 0 ) and atom-2 in the excited state (= 1 ).

The other case is atom-1 in the excited state ( = 1 ) and the atom-2 in the ground state (= 0 ).

If physicists initialize an atom or an ion to the ground state 0, and then shine light on the atom for a different period of time, the atom oscillates between the ground state (= 0 ) and excited state (= 1 ) depending on how long the light was applied ( this p.2-Figure.2 ).

This atomic periodic oscillation between two energy states ( 0 ↔ 1 ) by shining light is called Rabi oscillation ( this Fig.3,4 ).

Quantum mechanics tries to falsely treat the middle state between the ground and excited states in this oscillation as quantum superposition (= a dead-and-alive cat state ) where the ground-state and the excited-state co-exist simultaneously using two (fictional) parallel worlds.

There is **No** evidence of this quantum superposition or parallel worlds, because we can observe only one of ground state or excited state, when measuring the atomic state.

This illusory quantum **superposition** state is just the **middle** state of ground state and excited state, or an artificially-prepared **3rd** state, which has **nothing** to do with quantum occult superposition or parallel worlds.

*(Fig.5) The probability of a photon passing the polarizing filter is cos ^{2}θ (= θ is the angles between the light polarization and the polarizing filter's axis ) ?*

The light intensity passing the polarizing filter is known to I cos^{2}θ where I is the incident light's intensity, and θ is the angle between the light's polarization and the polarizing filter's axis, which classical principle is called Malus' law based on classical **divisible** light wave.

The quantum entanglement theory unreasonably tries to use this **classical** Malus' law to estimate the probability of a fictitious photon (= an indivisible particle ) passing (or reflected from ) the polarizing filter ( this p.3, this p.4, ), though there is **No** theoretical evidence of a photon particle obeying classical Malus' law.

*(Fig.6) Probability of a photon passing or reflected from the polarizing filter.*

By using the classical Malus' law, they insist the probability of a (imaginary) photon passing the polarizing filter is cos^{2}α (= α is the angle between the photon's polarization and the polarizing filter's axis ).

See this p.2, this p.5 this p.2-last.

And the probability of a (imaginary) photon reflected from the polarizing filter is sin^{2}α (= 1 - cos^{2}α ).

*(Fig.7) When the angle difference between polarizing filters A and B is θ, the probability of two photons A and B passing their filters is cos ^{2} θ *

A light source in the middle is supposed to emit two photons A and B (= just weak lights ) with the same polarization in the opposite direction towards the polarizing filter A (← photon-A ) and filter B (← photon-B ).

When the angle difference between the polarizing filters A and B is θ, and the photon-A **passes** the polarizing filter-A, the probability of a photon-B **passing** the polarizing filter B is close to cos^{2}θ.

↑ The total probability of both of these two photons A and B passing their polarizing filters A and B is 1/2cos^{2}θ, because the chance of the photon-A with random polarization passing (or reflected from ) the polarizing filter-A is 50% ( or 50 %, this p.5 )

It means when the photon-A **passes** the polarizing filter-A, the **distant** photon-B's polarization must instantly become the **same** as the distant polarizing filter-A (= or the polarization of the photon-A after passing the filter-A ) by some spooky superluminal entanglement action, and the probability of the instantly-changed photon-B's passing the polarizing filter-B becomes cos^{2}θ

This unscientific mechanism based on the impossible superluminal action is is the current mainstream quantum entanglement theory.

The probability of **both** of these two photons **reflected** by their filters is also said to be 1/2cos^{2}θ.

Because the moment the photon-A is reflected by the polarizing filter A, the distant photon-B's polarization suddenly becomes **perpendicular** to the distant polarizing filter-A's axis (= or B photon's polarization suddenly becomes the same as the polarization of the distant photon-A after reflected from the filter-A ) by unphysical superluminal link.

Then, the chance that the photon-B with the instantly-modified polarization perpendicular to the distant filter-A is reflected from the polarizing filter-B is con^{2}θ (= θ is the angle difference between axes of polarizing filters A and B ).

The probability that one of two photons A and B passes the polarizing filter and the other photon is reflected by the filter is sin^{2}θ (= 1 - cos^{2}θ ).

Because when the photon-A passes the polarizing filter-A, and the photon-A's polarization becomes parallel to the polarizing filter-A's axis, the distant photon-B's polarization instantly becomes parallel to the distant polarizing filter-A ( by unphysical superluminal entanglement action ).

And the chance that the photon-B with the **instantly-modified** polarization parallel to the distant polarizing filter-A is reflected from the polarizing filter-B is sin^{2}θ.

↑ This unscientific **impossible** theory is quantum entanglement.

*(Fig.8) Classical light wave detected as a (fictitious) photon, only when its light intensity exceeds the photodetector's threshold can explain entanglement without quantum superluminal action.*

Only when two polarized lights or photons are used for entanglement, a little complicated trick is used to make it look like an (illusory) spooky action, which is debunked in this section.

All other entanglement experiments such as atoms and light phase (= time-bin ) can be naturally and simply explained by **classical** light or atoms (= No quantum mechanics is needed ), which do Not need (unphysical) quantum spooky superluminal action.

According to the (unphysical) quantum entanglement theory, the probability of both of two entangled polarized photons passing (or both photons reflected by ) polarizing filters is cos^{2}θ where θ is the angle difference between two polarizing filters' axes.

So when the axes (= upper blue arrows ) of two polarizing filters A and B are the same 0^{o}, the angle difference is θ = 0, hence the probability of both of two photons passing (or both photons reflected by ) filters becomes 1 (= cos^{2}0^{o}).

↑ It means when one of these two photons passes the polarizing filter, the other photon also must pass the polarizing filter.

And when one of these two photons is reflected by the polarizing filter, the other photon also must be reflected by the polarizing filter.

We can naturally explain this phenomenon of entanglement by ordinary classical light wave without relying on fictional superluminal action.

In the upper figure ①, two light waves with the same polarization point to almost 0^{o} which is almost the same as axis angles (= 0^{o} = (++) region around the blue arrows ) of the polarizing filters A and B.

In this case, almost all of two light waves can pass the polarizing filters according to Malus law, and resultantly, their light intensity passing the filters can surpass the detection threshold of photodetectors, which means both the light pass filters, and are detected as (fictitious) photons.

In the upper figure ③, when polarizations of two lights point to almost 90^{o} (= - - region in the upper figure ), almost all of these two lights are reflected by the polarizing filters.

As a result, the intensity of the reflected lights exceeds the detection threshold of the photodetectors, and these two lights are detected as "reflected photons."

In the upper figure ②, when polarizations of two light A and B point to almost 45^{o} (= *blue shaded* region ), the incident light almost equally **splits** into two weaker lights toward "pass" and "reflect" sides at the polarizing filter according to Malus' law.

As a result, the intensity of these two split weaker lights fails to reach the detection threshold of the photodetector, and in this case of ②, the (fictitious) photons are Not detected ( this case is dismissed and neglected ).

*(Fig.9) Intensity of light splitting into two almost-equal weaker lights cannot reach detection threshold of the photodetector. ↓*

If No photons are detected, this case is not considered in the final results of entanglement experiments.

*(Fig.10) Quantum crazy superluminal entanglement can be explained by ordinary classical light wave without spooky action. *

This is the trick of (fictional superluminal) quantum entanglement that can be naturally explained by classical light wave and photodetector's detection threshold.

This p.7 says

"Discriminator threshold (by which the low amplitude outputs pulses are **discarded** )"

"We believe that the influence of these **thresholds** may have been overlooked in the discussion on non-classical effects,
and in particular in EPR and Bell inequality discussion. Individually, each threshold seems quite harmless, but we will
show here that their combined effect can have a **significant influence** on the coincidence counting statistics. Indeed the
combined effect of these two threshold opens the possibility of a fundamental, and yet tunable, detection threshold in
photon counting, which can lead to a sample selection bias in the detected events, leading to an apparent violation of
Bell inequalities (= entanglement case ) in a fully **local realistic** framework."

*(Fig.11) When the axis of polarizing filter-A (= 0 ^{o} ) is perpendicular to the axis of polarizing filter-B (= 90^{o} )*

In the upper figure, the axis of the polarizing filter-A (= 0^{o} ) is **perpendicular** to the axis of the polarizing filter-B (= 90^{o} ).

According to quantum entanglement theory, in this case of angle difference between two polarizing filters being θ = 90^{o}, two photons always show the **opposite** results: when one photon **passes** the polarizing filter, the other photon is always **reflected** from the polarizing filter (= chance that the photon-B passes the filter-B is 0 = cos^{2} 90^{o} when the photon-A passes the filter-A ).

We can naturally explain this alleged entanglement phenomena by ordinary classical light wave **without** unphysical quantum superluminal spooky action.

In the upper figure ① case, the polarization of the light wave-A points to 0^{o} (= -+ region ) that is almost the same as the the axis of polarizing filter-A (= 0^{o}), and the polarization of the light wave-B (= same 0^{o} as light-A ) is **perpendicular** to the axis of the polarizing filter-B (= 90^{o} ).

So in this case, almost all of the light-A **passes** the polarizing filter-A (= light-A is detected at photodetector on the "pass" side ), and almost all of the light-B is **reflected** from the polarizing filter-B (= light-B is detected at the photodetector on the "reflect" side ). ← Lights-A and B show the **opposite** results.

In the upper figure ③ case,
the polarization of the light wave-A points to 90^{o} (= +- region ) that is almost perpendicular to the axis of polarization filter-A (= 0^{o}), and the polarization of the light wave-B (= same 90^{o} as light-A ) is almost the same as the axis of the polarizing filter-B (= 90^{o} ).

So in this case, almost all of the light-A is **reflected** by the polarizing filter-A (= light-A is detected at photodetector on the "reflect" side ), and almost all of the light-B **passes** the polarizing filter-B (= light-B is detected at the photodetector on the "pass" side ). ← Lights-A and B show the **opposite** results.

In the upper figure ②, when polarizations of two light A and B point to almost 45^{o} (= *blue shaded* region ), the incident light splits into two weaker lights toward "pass" and "reflect" sides almost equally at the polarizing filter according to Malus' law.

As a result, the intensity of these two split weaker lights fails to reach the detection threshold of the photodetector, and in this case of ②, the (fictitious) photons are Not detected (= when No photons are detected, this case is dismissed and neglected ).

So the realistic classical light wave can explain the case of two perpendicular polarizing filters where one light passes the filter and the other light is reflected by the filter.

This is the real mechanism of entanglement by ordinary classical light wave that does Not need fictional quantum superluminal spooky action.

*(Fig.12) Classical light wave and photodetector's detection threshold can explain also this case where axis difference between the polarizing filters A and B is 45 ^{o} *

This figure shows the case in which the axis angle difference between two polarizing filters A and B is **45 degrees**.
In this case , when the photon A passes through the filter A and is detected, the probability that the photon B passes the filter B is 50 percent ( = cos^{2}45^{o} = 1/2 = the chance of photon-B reflected by filter-B is 50% when the photon-A passes the filter-A ) according to the entanglement theory.

Like in this and this, when the polarizations of two lights-A and B point to (++) region of the upper figure, both of these two lights can pass their polarizing filters, and their passing light intensity is strong enough to reach the detection threshold of photodetectors, and they are detected as (fictitious) photons in the "pass" side.

When the polarizations of two lights-A and B point to (+-) region of the upper figure, light-A passes the polarizing filter-A, and the light-B is reflected by the filter-B according to Malus law..

When the polarizations of two lights-A and B point to the shaded blue region of the upper figure, only one light-A or B is detected as a (fictitious) photon, and the other light splits into two weker lights almost equally at the polarizing filter, which light intensity is Not strong enough to reach the detection threshold of the photodetector (= so Not detected as a photon ).

↑ Cases when only one photon is detected is dismissed and neglected (= only cases of detecting both photons A and B simultaneously are used as the results of entanglement experiments ).

As a result, classical light wave can naturally explain the case of two polarizing filters' angle difference being 45^{o} where the chance of both photons passsing (or being reflected by ) polarizing filters is equal to he chance of one photon passing the filter and the other photon reflected by the filter.

*(Fig.13) Classical light wave and photodetector's detection threshold can explain also this case of axis angle difference between polarizing filters A and B is 30 ^{o}.*

This upper figure shows the case in which the axis angle difference between two polarizing filters A and B is **30 degrees**.
In this case , when the photon A passes through the filter A and is detected, the probability that the photon B passes the filter B is 75 percent ( = cos^{2}30^{o} = 3/4 = 75 % = the chance of photon-B reflected by the filter-B is 25% when the photon-A passing the filter-A ) according to the entanglement theory.

Like in this. this, this, when the polarizations of two lights-A and B point to (++) region of the upper figure, both of these two lights can pass their polarizing filters, and their passing light intensity is strong enough to reach the detection threshold of photodetectors, and they are detected as (fictitious) photons on the "pass" side.

When the polarizations of two lights-A and B point to (+-) region of the upper figure, light-A **passes** the polarizing filter-A, and the light-B is **reflected** by the filter-B according to Malus law.

When the polarizations of two lights-A and B point to the *shaded blue* region of the upper figure, only one light-A or B is detected as a (fictitious) photon, and the other light splits into two weaker lights almost equally at the polarizing filter, which light intensity is Not strong enough to reach the detection threshold of the photodetector (= so Not detected as a photon, which case is dismissed and neglected ).

↑ In entanglement experiments, only cases of two photons-A and B detected simultaneously are used.

As a result, classical light wave can naturally explain the case of two polarizing filters' angle difference being 30^{o} where when photon-A passes the polarizing filter-A, the chance of the photon-B passing the filter-B is 75% (= cos^{2}30^{o} ).

*(Fig.14) Photon A hits filters A1 or A2. Photon B hits filters B1 or B2 with different polarizers' axis angles as shown below.*

Suppose, **photon A** bumps into two kinds of polarizing filters *A1 whose axis points to 0 degrees* and *A2 whose axis points to 60 degrees* (= 30^{o} × 2 in the upper figure ).

And **photon B** bumps into two filters *B1 whose axis points to 30 degrees* and *B2 whose axis points to 90 degrees* (= 30^{o} × 3 in the upper figure ).

Fig.14 shows the axis directions in these four polarizing filters.

( Caution: The polarizing filters A1 and A2 are at the side of photon A, and the filters B1 and B2 are at photon B side.)

In this case, there are *16* patterns (= 2^{4}) in which each photon (= light wave ) A or B passes (+) or is reflected (-) by each different polarizing filter ( A1,A2,B1,B2 ), as follows,

*(Fig.15) ↓ P3 (
= + + - + ) shows the probability that a photon-A passes (= + ) the polarizing filters with A1 and A2 angles, and a photon-B passes the polarizing filter with B2 angle, and reflects (= - ) from the polarizing filter with angle B1*

↑ This upper figure shows probability (= P ) that a photon-A passes (= + ) or is reflected by (= - ) the polarizing filter with angles of A1 or A2, and a photon-B passes (= + ) or is reflected by (= - ) the polarizing filter with angles of B1 or B2.

For example, P1 (= + + + + ) shows the probability that both photons-A and B pass (= + ) all polarizing filters A1,A2 (← photon-A), B1,B2 (← photon-B ).

P4 (= + + - - ) shows the probability that the photon-A passes (= + ) two polarizing filters with A1 and A2 angles, and the photon-B is reflected (= - ) from two polarizing filters with B1 and B2

The sum of all these probabilities is *1* ( **P1 + P2 + P3 + .....+ P15 + P16 = 1** ).

Here we define as follows,

---------------------------------------------------------------------

< A1, B1 > = ( the probability that the signs of A1 and B1 are the *same*, **+ +** and **- -** ) - (the probability that the signs of A1 and B1 are *different*, **+ -** and **- +** )
= (P1+P2+P5+P6+P11+P12+P15+P16) - (P3+P4+P7+P8+P9+P10+P13+P14)

In the same way,

< A2, B1 > = ( the probability that the signs of A2 and B1 are the *same*, + + and - - ) - (the probability that the signs of A2 and B1 are *different*, + - and - +)
= (P1+P2+P7+P8+P9+P10+P15+P16) - (P3+P4+P5+P6+P11+P12+P13+P14)

< A2, B2 > = ( the probability that the signs of A2 and B2 are the *same*, + + and - - ) - (the probability that the signs of A2 and B2 are *different*, + - and - +)
= (P1+P3+P6+P8+P9+P11+P14+P16) - (P2+P4+P5+P7+P10+P12+P13+P15)

< A1, B2 > = ( the probability that the signs of A1 and B2 are the *same*, + + and - - ) - (the probability that the signs of A1 and B2 are *different*, + - and - +)
= (P1+P3+P5+P7+P10+P12+P14+P16) - (P2+P4+P6+P8+P9+P11+P13+P15)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

So we arrive at the following equation,

< A1, B1 > + < A2, B1 > + < A2, B2 > - < A1, B2 > = **2 ( K - L )**

K = P1+P2+P6+P8+P9+P11+P15+P16

L = P3+P4+P5+P7+P10+P12+P13+P14

Using the relation, **(K + L) = Σ P _{i} = 1**,

So the following inequality (**Bell inequality, CHSH type**) must be satisfied in the fictitious indivisible photon particles with idealistically No photon loss (= which is impossible ),

| < A1, B1 > + < A2, B1 > + < A2, B2 > - < A1, B2 > | = 2 | K - L | **≦ 2**

this p.2-3, this p.32-35, this p.33-35, this p.12, this-(16)-(19), this p.4, this p.4

For example, the probability that the results of the photons A (→ A1) and B (→ B1) are *the same* summing the cases of ( + + = both photons A and B pass each polarizing filter ) and ( - - = both photons A and B are reflected from each polarizing filter ) is **cos ^{2} (A1-B1)**,

where (A1-B1) is the axis

And the probability that the results are *different* summing ( + - = photon A passes the polarizing filter-A1 and photon B reflects from the polarizing filter-B1 ) and ( - + = photon A reflects from the polarizing filter-A1 and photon B passes the polarizing filter-B1 ) is **sin ^{2} (A1-B1)** (= 1 - cos

So, < A1, B1 > of Bell inequality is ( this p.4-10, this p.3 )

*(Eq.1)*

where θ_{A1 - B1} means the angle difference of (A1 -B1 = 30 degrees ) between two polarizing filters's axes A1 and B1.

In the case of Fig.14, each cosine value becomes

*(Eq.2)*

and

From Eq.2, the above Bell inequality (CHSH type) is,

*(Eq.3)*

**This violates** Bell inequality !

So physicists claim these two polarized photons A and B showed the faster-than-light quantum entanglement action, and we must give up any realities in quantum mechanics. ← ridiculous.

But as I said, this illusory superluminal quantum entanglement is caused by falsely treating the realistic divisible classical light wave (+ detection threshold trick at the single photon detector ) as a fictitious indivisible photon particle.

In conclusion, if the photon is a (fictitious) indivisible particle, the strange nonlocal phenomena such as the entanglement are actually occurring, and we **must** believe this fantasy faster-than-light transmission.

In other words, if the photon is a dividable electromagnetic wave, we **need not** consider this fantasy superluminal entanglement action.

You can easily judge which case (photon is a (fictitious) particle or realistic light **wave** ) is more natural.

In order to claim this unrealistic superluminal quantum entanglement link is true, physicists must detect two polarized photons simultaneouly with almost 100% coincidence detection rate, which is impossible ( this p.4-left-lower, this p.22, this p.3-3, Fig.2-3, this p.3-Table.I, this Fig.2, Table I ).

Physicists gave up using the fictitious photons and tried to conduct the illusory quantum entanglement experiments of high detection efficiency using two Beryllium ions (= Be+ ), arranging that when one Be+ ion's nuclear spin is up (or down ), the other Be+ ion spin is always up (or down, = so up-up or down-down = entanglement !? No! ), this p.2-3, this p.1-left ).

↑ This Be+ ion case also has **nothing** to do with (illusory) superluminal quantum entanglement link, physicsts just artificially **prepared** two Be ions with the same-directional nuclear spins using the classical electromagnetic field and laser light so that both Be+ ions have the nuclear spins point in the same direction (= both Be+ ions are prepared to be in the same hyperfine energy levels ), which nuclear spin directions are estimated by illuminating Be+ ions with another lights ( this p.2 ) without using polarizing filters.

In the low detection efficiency photon case, physicists tried to change the original Bell inequality or intentionally avoid measureing the photons reflected from the polarizers to avoid the unsolvable issue of the intrinsically-low photon coincidence detection efficiency loophole ( this p.4, this p.2-2nd-last paragraph, p.3-Table.I ).

↑ So the low detection efficiency problem (= low coincidence rate of counting both pass and reflect photons at each polarizing filter ) is Not solved, and they cannot exclude the classical light wave case.

As a result, the superluminal quantum entanglement is just **illusion** which can be naturally **replaced** by the realistic divisible classical light wave without the fantasy superluminal spooky action.

The 6th, 7th, 9th, 12-13th, 18th paragraphs of this hyped news say

Currently, a process called adaptive optics is used to correct image distortions caused by aberrations. Aberrations can be caused by small imperfections in lenses and other optical components or by flaws in the sample under the microscope."

"The key to adaptive optics is a "guide star"—a bright spot identified in the sample under the microscope which provides a reference point for detecting aberrations. Devices called spatial light modulators (= SLM ) can then shape the light and correct for these distortions."

"In the new paper, researchers.. outline how they used entangled photons to sense and correct for aberrations that normally distort microscope images. They call the process quantum-assisted adaptive optics (= actually, quantum entanglement does Not assist anything )."

"When the entangled photon pairs encounter aberration, their entanglement—in the form of quantum correlations—becomes degraded. The researchers show that the way these quantum correlations are degraded actually reveals information about the aberrations (= **untrue**, entanglement can Not deal with any real information ) and allows them to be corrected using sophisticated computer analysis."

"The information contained in the correlations allows for a precise characterization of aberrations, enabling their correction with a spatial light modulator (= just classically modulate light phase ) afterward."

"The team still have some technical **hurdles** to overcome before the technique can be widely adopted in optical microscopes (← still **useless** entanglement )."

↑ This research just shone two (classical) light waves with the same polarizations on samples (= after getting laser light through BBO crystal, which they call "entanglement", this p.3-III results ), compared their images and correct "aberration" by device called spacial light modulator (= SLM ) to obtain good images. ← Quantum mechancs or entanglement is completely **irrelevant**.

↑ One light got through the sample and aberration-generator (= light phase was randomly disturbed ), the other light (= reference light ) got through only the aberration-generator.

By comparing these two light images (= entanglement is irrelevant ), they could estimate and remove the aberration using spatial light modulator that can change light phase in different positions through changing refractive index of material ( this p.3 ).

↑ This research paper ↓

p.3-left-III says "A spatial
light modulator (= SLM that can change light phase ), used to correct for aberrations"

p.4-right-2nd-paragraph says "only one photon of a pair interacts with the
object, while its twin serves as a reference"

p.6-Fig.4 tried to find the best image correction by trial and error.

p.7-left-Discussion-lower says " it is important to note that QAO (= this method ) is **Not** yet adaptable in fluorescence microscopy (= No color is available )... In practice, the main limitation of QAO is its **long**
operating time (= image correction takes **much** time )" ← This microscope is **impractical**.

Of course, this research did **Not** use the (unphysical) quantum entanglement or faster-than-light spooky link (= entanglement itself can neither send real information nor do any work, so it's a meaningless concept, this-last-paragraph ).

They just generated two (classical) lights with the same polarizations which they called entanglement.

This research paper (= p.3-right-middle) says

"although the object is illuminated by a
source of entangled photon pairs.., the imaging process itself is purely '**classical**' as the output image is obtained through a simple
intensity measurement (= quantum entanglement was **irrelevant** )."

As a result, this research just prepared two (classical) light waves, and corrected light phase or image by comparing these two light getting through the material with No quantum mechanical entanglement (= because information or image can Not be sent or dealt with by quantum entanglement ).

Feel free to link to this site.