Quantum faster-than-light entanglement by Bell inequality violation is useless and illusion.

Quantum entanglement is a useless overhyped concept irrelevant to faster-than-light spooky action, and No practical application.

(Fig.1)  Entanglement is meaningless = a box-A (or box-B ) contains a red (or blue ) ball.  → when the box-A is opened to expose the red ball, the box-B has a blue ball.  ← No spooky action.

Put a red ball in a box.  → Open the box to see a red ball.  ← entanglement is a meaningless concept.

Contrary to overhyped news, the quantum entanglement is a completely meaningless concept irrelevant to the faster-than-light spooky action.

In Fig.1, one of boxes-A and B contains a red ball, and the other box has a blue ball (= which box contains a red or blue ball is uncertain ).

When these boxes are sent to two distant positions A and B, a man in A opens the box-A and sees a red ball, it instantly (= by faster than light entanglement spooky action ? No ) determines that the other box-B (= still closed ) contains a blue ball.

↑ This meaningless natural concept is quantum entanglement.

Quantum entanglement, teleportation are useless, sending No information that must be sent by ordinary classical communication.

↑ This meaningless quantum entanglement can Not send any information nor communicate, because the other man in B position cannot know what ball is contained in the distant box-A ( or the closed box-B ), unless the distant man in A sends the information of the ball inside the box-A to the man-B via the ordinary classical communication slower than light.

This-1st~2nd-paragraphs say
"Quantum entanglement does Not allow for faster-than-light communication."

"the measurement of the entangled particle is fundamentally random and unpredictable, and any attempt to transmit information using this method would require a classical communication channel (= ordinary phones or email ), which would be limited by the speed of light."

This-last-paragraph says
"It turns out entanglement alone is Not enough to send data. For example, quantum teleportation uses entanglement to transfer quantum states across long distances. However, teleportation requires sending a classical bit (= by ordinary classical communication ) in addition to the entangled qubits. So, while the entanglement operates instantaneously, the information transfer is limited by the speed of the classical information, "

As a result, this meaningless quantum entanglement sending No information is completely useless for any technologies such as cryptography and quantum computers.

 

Quantum entanglement just preparing and measuring two classical polarized lights is irrelevant to faster than light spooky action.

(Fig.2) Entanglement means just preparing two lights with the same polarization in the case below, No quantum spooky action.

Just preparing and measuring two (classical) lights with the same polarization.  ← quantum entanglement is a meaningless concept.

The quantum entanglement is a meaningless concept irrelevant to the faster-than-light spooky action, which is useless for any technologies and unable to send any real information.

In Fig.2, they artificially choose the light source (= called BBO crystal,  this-p.5  this-p.2-left ) emitting two lights with same polarizations (= both lights have vertical-vertical VV or horizontal-horizontal HH polarizations ) in the opposite directions toward photodetectors-1 and 2.

↑ It means when the photodetector-1 measures a vertically-polarized light, it instantly (= by faster-than-light spooky entanglement action ? No ) determines that the other light sent to the opposite photodetector-2 also has the vertical polarization ( this-p.7-2nd-paragraph ).

This-4th-paragraph says
"if an experimenter measures one photon and it collapses into (= turns out to be ) horizontal polarization, then the other photon will instantly (= faster-than-light entanglement ? No ) do the same, no matter the distance."

↑ This is quite a natural thing irrelevant to quantum mechanics nor faster-than-light entanglement spooky action ( this-2nd-last-paragraph ).

Quantum mechanics unrealistically insists the measurement of one light instantly affects the other light's polarization by (illusory) faster than light entanglement spooky action.

But today's unrealistic quantum mechanics insists when the photodetector-A measures the vertically-polarized light, some spooky faster-than-light action makes the other distant light have the same vertical polarization instantly ( this-p.5-lower ).  ← Nonsense.

This-5th~7thparagraphs say
"The light source always produces pairs of photons with the same polarization. Alice and Bob do not know which polarization the pair has until they measure their photons. Let's say Alice measures vertical; Bob will measure vertical too. If Alice measures horizontal, so will Bob."

"nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, Alice apparently influenced Bob's photon instantaneously without interacting with it... If not instantaneously, the influence is at least superluminal, faster than the speed of light."  ← self-contradiction, spooky entanglement is faster or not-faster than light ?

Unrealistic quantum mechanics claims there are (illusory) parallel universes or superposition containing photons with different polarizations until the measurement.

In addition to this unrealistic entanglement, they baselessly claim these two lights or photons are in the (unseen) superposition (= a dead-and-alive cat ) state containing two (illusory) parallel worlds ( this-3~4th-paragraphs ) of both lights having vertical polarization in one parallel universe and both lights having horizontal polarization in the other parallel universe until the measurement ( this-p.2-left-2nd-paragraph,  this-2. ).

This-3rd-paragraph says
"the photon pairs actually will be in both states—horizontal and vertical polarization—at the same time. Until someone measures one, at which time both photons must chose one specific, and identical, state"

Faster-than-light spooky entanglement action disproves Einstein relativity, hence quantum mechanics is wrong, too.

↑ If this (illusory) faster than light spooky entanglement action was true ( this-2~4th-paragraphs ), Einstein relativity prohibiting any faster-than-light objects is wrong, which also disproves quantum mechanics heavily relying on Einstein relativity in (unphysical) relativistic quantum field theory and spin-orbit interaction.

This-2nd-last paragraph says
"Importantly, there is also no conflict with special relativity, which forbids faster-than-light communication. The fact that measurements over vast distances are correlated does not imply that information is transmitted between the particles. Two parties far apart performing measurements on entangled particles cannot use the phenomenon to pass along information faster than the speed of light."

↑ We cannot send any information nor communicate by the quantum entanglement, which is a useless meaningless concept

(Fig.2') when one light is measured to have horizontal-polarization (= H ), it instantly (= by faster-than-light entanglement ? No ) determines the other light as vertically-polarized light (= V ).

Just preparing and measuring two lights with the perpendicular polarizations has nothing to do with superluminal entanglement spooky action between these lights.

In Fig.2', they artificially choose the light source (= called BBO crystal type II ) emitting two lights with the different polarizations (= one light has vertical, the other light has horizontal polarizations ).

↑ So when one detector measures the vertically polarized light, it determines that the other light has horizontal polarization, instantly (= by faster-than-light spooky entanglement ? No ).

Quantum mechanics baselessly insists that these two lights are in the (illusory) superposition containing two parallel universes where each light has vertical and horizontal polarizations simultaneously until the measurement (= so quantum superposition = a dead-and-alive cat state or parallel universes are unobservable ).

↑ They claim the moment one light is measured to have the vertical polarization, a quantum spooky faster-than-light entanglement action makes the other light have the horizontal polarization ( this-1~4th-paragraphs,  this-3rd-paragraph ).  ← nonsense.

This-3rd-paragraph says
"two entangled photons are polarized in perpendicular directions,..
Measure photon A to be vertically polarized, and photon B instantaneously (= by faster-than-light entanglement action ? No. ) becomes horizontally polarized "

As shown here, quantum entanglement (= just measuring artificially-prepared polarized lights ) is useless, unable to send any real information.

 

Entanglement or teleportation is just "measurement" of two classical lights with some artificially-prepared polarizations, which sends No real information, No practical application.

(Fig.3) Prepare two classical ( 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.

Quantum entanglement or teleportation is just the measurement of two classical polarized lights, irrelevant to faster-than-light spooky action.

In Fig.3, each light source A (and B) emits a pair of classical lights (= one light is horizontally-polarized, the other light is vertically-polarized ).

↑ Quantum mechanics baselessly argues this pair of two classical polarized lights are entangled via (illusory) faster-than-light spooky action.  ← nonsense.

When the polarizations of two lights ② (= from source-1 ) and ③ (= from source-2 ) are measured to have the same vertical polarizations at the center photodetectors (= called Bell-state measurement or BSM,  this-p.2 ), this measurement instantly determines (= by superluminal spooky entanglement ? No ) that two other lights ① and ④ have the same horizontal polarizations.

↑ This meaningless quantum entanglement or teleportation which is just the measurement of two classical lights, is unable to send any information faster than light (= ordinary classical communication is necessary to send real information slower than light, this-2nd-last-paragraph ).

Fig.3 is called quantum swapping, which is said to be used for quantum repeater, which is impractical forever due to easily-lost fragile quantum information (= photons or weak light ).

 

Just manipulating atomic energy states (= or quantum computer's qubits ) by light wave has nothing to do with quantum entanglement or superposition.

(Fig.4)  Each atomic (or an ion's ) ground-state (= 0 ) and excited state (= 1) are often used as a (useless) quantum computer's bit or a qubit.

Each atomic two energy levels are used as a quantum computer's bit's (= a qubit's ) 0 or 1 value.

Each atomic (or an ion's ) ground-state (= 0 ) and the excited state (= 1 ) are often used as a (overhyped useless) quantum computer's bit (= qubit ) 0 or 1 states.

This qubit states (= an atomic energy states ) are controlled by by laser light.

Today's error-prone quantum computers with only less than 100 qubits (= one qubit can take only 0 or 1 value ) are unable to calculate anything, still Not (quantum) computers.

They baseless insist each atom (or an ion) can be in two different energy levels 0 and 1 at the same time by utilizing quantum superposition (= a dead and alive cat ) states or parallel universes (= unobservable, so No evidence, this-p.5 ).

↑ This superposition is just a classical intermediate state between two energy levels (= giving 0 or 1 bit state with the same probability, when measured ) irrelevant to quantum mechanics.

(Fig.5) Whether two qubits are 00 or 11 states are uncertain = two qubits are in (illusory) superposition states of 00 and 11 → when one qubit is 0, the other qubit is 0 = superluminal quantum entanglement ? No.

Just preparing two qubits' 00 or 11 states (= when qubit-1 is 0, qubit-2 is 0, too ) is falsely treated as superluminal quantum entanglement.

Overhyped quantum computers are said to use quantum entanglement and parallel-universe superposition for (illusory) faster calculations, which is totally wrong.

In Fig.5, there are two qubits (= one qubit, which is made of an atom or a superconducting circuit, can take only 0 or 1, which is still Not a computer ).

They unreasonably claim the qubit-1 can be in (illusory) quantum superposition where each qubit can be in 0 and 1 states simultaneously using two parallel universes (= which just means each qubit outputs 0 or 1 with 50%-50% chance, so irrelevant to quantum superposition or parallel universes ) illuminated by some laser light (= called Hadamard H gate ).

When CNOT gate is applied to the qubit-1 in the (illusory) superposition of 0 and 1 states, it is said to create the new (illusory) superposition and entangled states of two qubits-1 and 2 being 00 and 11 states simultaneously called Bell state ( this-Figure 4 ) like a dead and alive cat.

Preparing and measuring two qubits being in the same bit states of 00 or 11 has nothing to do with superluminal spooky entanglement nor superposition.

↑ It means when the qubit-1 is measured to be in 0 state, the other qubit-2 instantly becomes 0 (= by the faster-than-light quantum spooky entanglement action ? No ).

↑ When qubit-1 is measured to be 1 bit state, qubit-2 is determined as "1" bit state, too (← this meaningless concept just preparing two qubits in the same bit state is quantum entanglement ).

This-9~10th-paragraphs say
Two of the Bell states give an equal superposition such that both of the qubits end up in the same state when measured, with a 50% chance that both will be in either the 0 or 1 state."

"If we measure the first qubit in the state 0, we know that the second qubit must be in 0 when we measure it. Even if these two qubits were on opposite ends of the globe and... While this is often taken to mean that entanglement violates locality,... No superluminal transmission of information is possible using entanglement"

↑ We cannot see the quantum superposition nor parallel universes (= so No evidence of quantum superposition nor quantum computer's speed-up ).

We can observe only one state of two qubits being 00 states or 11 states in the upper case ( this-p.2 ), which has nothing to do with quantum entanglement nor parallel universes.

 

(Fig.6)  Just preparing two atomic states (= one atom is +1 energy level, the other atom is -1 energy level ) does Not mean the faster-than-light spooky quantum entanglement.

No experimental evidence of the faster-than-light spooky entanglement.

The alleged loophole-free Bell inequality violation experiments did Not deny the realism nor prove the faster-than-light quantum entanglement spooky action.

In this experiment, they just prepared two distant atoms in nitrogen-vacancy (= NV ) center in diamond (= with No electron spin ) where one atom is in +1 energy level, and the other atom is in -1 energy level.  ← That's all, useless, No faster-than-light quantum entanglement.

When the photodetectors in the center C measures a pair of the early-arriving light and the late-arriving light emitted from these two distant atoms, it means one atom (= A or B ) in NV-center in diamond is in +1 energy level (= emitting the early-arriving light ) and the other atom is in -1 energy level (= emitting the late-arriving light ).

↑ After they artificially preapared these two atomic energy levels in diamonds, when one atom was measured to be in th energy level of +1, it instantly (= by faster-than-light spooky entanglement ? No ) determined the other atom being in the energy level of -1.

Just preparing one atom being m_s = 0 energy level and the other atom being m_s = ±1 energy level is useless, irrelevant to quantum entanglement.

↑ This alleged loophole free Bell inequality violation paper ↓

p.3-right says "causing the NV centre to emit many photons when it is in the bright m_s = 0 spin state, while it remains dark when it is in either of the m_s = ±1 states"  ← They just measured and distinguished lights (= or photons ) emitted from two different energy levels (= bright m_s = 0 state and the dark m_s = ±1) instead of seeing the (fictional) electron spin itself.

"First we entangle each spin with the emission time of a single photon ( time bin encoding). The two photons are then sent to location C, where they are overlapped on a beam-splitter and subsequently detected. If the photons are indistinguishable,..."

"the observation of one early and one late photon (= two photons or lights emitted from two different atomic energy levels arrived at the center photodetectors at different times, early and late ) in different output ports projects the spins at A and B into the maximally entangled state ψ= (|↑↓ − |↓↑) / where ms = 0 ≡ ↑, m_s = −1 ≡ ↓"

↑ By measuring lights emitted from two distant atoms in NV center in diamond, they judged that one atom being m_s = 0 energy level (= emitting the early-arriving classical light ) and the other atom being m_s = ±1 (= emitting the late-arriving light ).

↑ They just treated this preparation of two atoms in diamonds being in different energy states as "(illusory) entanglement", which is useless, irrelevant to superluminal spooky action, and No practical application.

Extremely high error rates due to massive photon loss invalidate this loophole free entanglement results.

This-p.5-right-last-paragraph says
"We find a success probability per entanglement generation attempt of about 6.4 × 10⁻⁹"  ← only one photon or light in 1000000000 attempts was detected at the center photodetectors due to massive photon loss, which extremely low success rate (= high error rates ) cannot prove anything such as loophole free entanglement.

This (= alleged loophole-free entanglement paper)-p.7-left-2nd-paragraph says "Strictly speaking, No Bell experiment can exclude the infinite number of conceivable local realist theories"  ← there are still loopholes, which means they could Not prove the faster-than-light entanglement after all.

 

(Fig.7) They baselessly claim the probability of a (fictional) photon passing (or reflected from ) the polarizer is cos²θ (or sin²θ ) where θ is the angle difference between the photon's (or light's ) polarization and the polarizer's axis.

Probability of a (fictional) photon passing the polarizer is cos²θ (= θ is the angle between the photon's polarization and the polarizer's axis ) ?

It is known that the (classical) light's intensity (= I ) passing the polarizer becomes I cos²θ (= θ is the angle difference between the polarizer's axis and the light polarization ), and the light's intensity reflected from the polarizer is I sin²θ

↑ This classical Malus law is based on classical light which can be split by the polarizing fiters.

But the quantum entanglement experiments try to use this classical Malus law based on the splittable classical light for the unsplittable fictional photon case.

Probability of a (fictional) photon reflected from the polarizer is sin²θ ?

They baselessly insist the probability of the (fictional) photon ball passing the polarizer is cos²θ (= θ is the angle difference between the photon's polarization and the polarizer's axis,  this-p.3 ), and the probability of the photon ball reflected from the polarizer is sin²θ ( this-p.2-last,  this-p.1-3rd-paragraph,  this-p.2 ).

 

(Fig.8)  The probability of both distant lights (= photons ) passing their polarizers is cos²θ (= θ is the angle difference between two polarizers' axes ) due to faster than light spooky entanglement action ?  ← No.

Quantum entanglement is unreal, based on some spooky uncertain superluminal action changing the distant photon's polarization instantly.

As I said, the quantum entanglement is a meaningless useless concept just preparing a pair of things such as two boxes containing blue or red balls,  and the vertically-horizontally-polarized lights...

In case of two polarized lights, they use some tricks treating classical light as a fictional photon to make it look like the faster-than-light spooky entanglement action obeying (classical) Malus law.

They unrealistically claim when two (classical) lights (= photons A and B ? ) with the same polarizations traveling in the opposite directions hit their polarizers, and the photon-A passes the polarizer-A, it instantly (= faster-than-light entanglement ? No. ) changes the distant photon-B's polarization into the same as the distant polarizer-A's axis (= polarization of the photon-A passing the polarizer-A ).

Probability of both photons passing the polarizers is cos²θ (= θ is angle difference between two polarizers ) due to the (illusory) faster-than-light entanglement spooky action ?

↑ It means the probability of both these distant photons-A and B passing their polarizers is cos²θ (= correctly 1/2cos²θ  θ is the angle difference between axes of the polarizers-A and B ) according to the classical Malus law ( this-p.2-(1),  this-p.4 ).

↑ The probability of one photon passing the polarizer and the other photon reflected from the polarizer is sin²θ.

This-p.3-1st-paragraph says
"If the first photon goes through a polarizer at angle α, the other photon immediately becomes polarized in the same direction (= by superluminal entanglement action ? No ). The second photon's probability of going through a polarizer at angle β is now given by Malus's law, cos² (α - β) ( this-p.5 )"

When the light or photon-A is reflected from the polarizer-A, it instantly (= faster than light entanglement ? No. ) makes the distant photon-B's polarization perpendicular to the distant polarizer-A's axis (= same as the polarization angle of the photon-A reflected from the polarizer-A ).

So the probability of both photons-A and B reflected from the polarizers is also 1/2cos²θ (= θ is the angle difference between two polarizers' axes ) according to the classical Malus law.

↑ The probability of both photons passing polarizers and both photons reflected from polarizers is cos²θ.
The probability of one photon passing and the other photon reflected from polarizers is sin²θ

Bell inequality violation or entanglement can be explained by classical light wave.

This case of entangled polarized lights seemingly violating Bell inequality via the (illusory) faster-than-light action can be explained by the divisible classical light + photodetectors without the unrealistic faster-than-light entanglement action.

 

(Fig.9)   A (fictional) photon is just a splittable classical light whose light intensity surpassing the detection threshold of a photodetector.

A photon is just classical light whose intensity surpassing the detection threshold of the photodetector.

The unrealistic faster-than-light quantum entanglement action is caused by wrongly treating a splittable classical light wave as a (fictional) unsplittable quantum photon ball.

According to Malus law. the classical light (= whose light intensity I ) splits into the pass side (= light intensity is I cos²θ where θ is angle difference between the light's polarization and the polarizer's axis ) and the reflect side (= light intensity is I sin²θ ) of the polarizer.

↑ When the θ is close to zero, the light intensity passing the polarizer (= I cos²θ ) is strong enough to be detected as a (fictional) photon by the photodetector.

↑ On the other hand, when the θ is close to 0, the light intensity reflected from the polarizer (= I sin²θ ) is too weak to reach the detection threshold of the photodetector (= Not detected as a photon ).

When classical light is almost equally split (= weakened ) by the polarizer, these equally-split light intensities are too weak to detect as a photon by photodetectors.

When the θ (= angle difference between light polarization and the polarizer's axis ) is close to 45^o, the light is split (= weakened ) almost equally into the pass and reflect sides of the photodetector, so these equally-split light inteinsties cannot reach the photodetector's detection threshold, and No photons are detected either in the pass or reflect sides.

This is the trick of causing the illusory faster than light entangled polarized photons or lights.

 

(Fig.10)   When classical light's intensity is divided almost equally by the polarizer into the pass and reflect sides, No photons are detected.

When classical light with 45^o polarization is split (= weakened ) almost equally by the polarizer (= 0^o axis ), this split light intensity is too weak to detect as a photon.

When the angle difference between the classical light polarization and the polarizer's axis is close to θ = 45^o, the light is split almost equally into the "pass" and "reflect sides of the polarizer" due to classical Malus law ( I cos² 45^o = I/2 ).

As a result, both light intensities passing and reflected from the polarizer become too weak to detect by the photodetector as a (fictional) photon.

Classical light, which is split equally by the polarizer and too weak to detect as a photon, is the trick of causing (illusory) superluminal quantum entanglement action.

This falsely treating the classical divisible light whose light intensity reaches the photodetector's detection threshold as a (fictional) photon is the trick of causing the illusory faster than light entanglement spooky action.

This-p.7 says
"Discriminator threshold (by which the low amplitude outputs pulses are discarded = Not detected as a photon )

We believe that the influence of these thresholds may been overlooked in the discussion on non-classical effects, and in particular in EPR and Bell inequality discussion....
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 in a fully local realistic framework."

↑ The apparent violation of Bell inequality is caused by classical light whose intensity reaching the detection threshold of the photodetector treated as a (fictional) photon, Not by the faster-than-light quantum entanglement.

 

When two polarizers-A and B have the same axis, the probability of two (illusory) photons-A and B passing (or reflected from ) the polarizers is 1 (= cos²0^o ), which violates Bell inequality, which can be explained by classical light without spooky entanglement.

(Fig.11)  When the axis angle difference between two polarizers-A and B is 0^o, probability of both photons-A and B passing (or reflected from ) polarizers is cos² 0^o = 1 (= 100% ), violating Bell inequality.

When two polarizers have the same axis angle (= θ = 0^o ), probability of two lights with the same polarization passing (or reflected ) from the polarizers is 1 = cos² 0^o  to violate Bell inequality.

In fact, classical light wave without the faster-than-light spooky action can naturally explain the quantum entanglement results.

In case when the axis angle difference between two polarizers-A and B is 0^o (= A and B have the same axis 0^o ), the probability of both two photons-A and B passing the polarizers has to be "1 (= cos²0^o )" to violate Bell inequality.

Two lights-A and B with same polarizations (= two lights have the same parallel polarizations in random directions, this-p.4-(c) ) are emitted from the center light source in the opposite directions ( Aspect used calcium laser as the source of entangled lights whose polarizations are parallel in random directions, this-p.2 ).

In Fig.11-① case, both the lights-A and B with the same 0^o polarization hit the ( + + ) part (= close to polarizer's axis ) of their polarizers, hence, both these light intensities passing the polarizers (= almost I cos² 0^o ) are strong enough to be detected as (fictional) photons by the photodetectors.

In Fig.11-③ case, both the lights-A and B with the same 90^o polarization hit the ( - - ) part (= almost perpendicular to polarizers' axes ) of their polarizers, hence, both these light intensities reflected from the polarizers (= almost I sin² 90^o = I = = I cos²0^o ) are strong enough to be detected as (fictional) photons by the photodetectors.

When classical light is split almost equally by the polarizer, its split light intensity is too weak to detect as a (fictional) photon, which is trick of the illusory superluminal entanglement.

In Fig.11-② case when both lights-A and B have the polarization close to 45^o, both these lights are split almost equally into "pass" and "reflect" sides of the polarizers, which equally-split light intensities are too weak to be detected by the photodetectors (= No photons detected, so this case is Not used as the result ).

As a result, the probability of both (fictional) photons passing (or reflected from ) the polarizers (and detected as photons ) becomes 1 (= cos²0^o ), which can violate Bell inequality even without faster-than-light quantum entanglement.

 

(Fig.12)  In case of the axis angle difference between two polarizers-A and B being 90^o, when one light (= or photon ) passes the polarizer, the other light is always reflected from the polarizer, which violation of Bell inequality can be explained by classical light without spooky superluminal quantum entanglement.

When the angle difference between two polarizers is 90^o, the probability of both photons (= classical lights ) with the same polarization passing (or reflected from ) polarizers is 0 (= cos² 90^o )

Classical light wave without the faster-than-light spooky action can naturally explain the quantum entanglement results violating Bell inequality like this.

In case when the axis angle difference between two polarizers-A and B is 90^o (= polarizers-A and B have the perpendicular axes ), the probability of both two photons-A and B passing the polarizers has to be "0 (= cos² 90^o )" to violate Bell inequality.

↑ It means when one photon is detected by the "pass" photodetector, the other photon is always detected by the "reflect" photodetector.

A fictional photon is just classical light wave whose light intensity surpasses the photodetector's detection threshold.

Both lights-A and B emitted from the source are supposed to have the same parallel polarizations in random directions = when one light is horizontally (or vertically or 45^o .. ) polarized, the other light is also horizontally (or vertically or 45^o .. ) polarized.

In Fig.12-① case, both the lights-A and B with the same 0^o polarization hit the ( + - ) part (= close to polarizer-A' s axis, and perpendicular to polarizer-B's axis ) of their polarizers, hence, the light-A intensity passing the polarizer-A (= almost I cos² 0^o = I ) and the light-B's intensity reflected from the polarizer-B (= almost I sin² 90^o = I ) are strong enough to be detected as a (fictional) photon by the photodetectors.

In Fig.12-③ case, both the lights-A and B with the same 90^o polarization hit the ( - + ) part of their polarizers, hence, the light-A's intensity reflected from the polarizer-A ( = almost I sin² 90^o = I ) and the light intensity-B passing the polarizer-B (= almost I cos² 0^o = I ) are strong enough to be detected as (fictional) photons by the photodetectors.

When light is almost equally split by polarizers, its split light intensity is too weak to detect as a (fictional) photon, which is trick of causing illusory superluminal entanglement action.

In Fig.12-② case when both lights-A and B have the polarization close to 45^o, both these lights are split almost equally into "pass" and "reflect" sides of the polarizers, which equally-split light intensities are too weak to be detected by the photodetectors (= No photons detected, so this case is Not used as the experimental results of entanglement ).

As a result, the probability of both lights passing (or reflected from ) the polarizers becomes 0 (= cos² 90^o ), which can violate Bell inequality even without faster-than-light spooky quantum entanglement action.

 

(Fig.13)  Classical light without faster than light spooky action can explain quantum entanglement experiments.

When classical light's polarization points to almost the same as (or perpendicular to ) the polarizer's axis, the light intensity passing (or reflected from ) is strong enough to detect as a (fictional) photon.

When classical light's polarization points to almost 45^o relative to polarizer's axis, this light intensity is split almost equally by the polarizer, and becomes too weak to detect as a photon (= this case is Not used ).

Also when the axis angle difference between two polarizers-A and B is 45^o, classical light without faster-than-light spooky action can explain the quantum entanglement experiments violating Bell inequality.

Two lights-A and B have the same parallel (but random-directional ) polarizations.

In Fig.13-① case, both the lights-A and B with the same 0^o polarization hit the blue shaded part.  only light-A's intensity passing the polarizer-A (= 0^o axis ) is strong enough to detect as a photon by photodetector.

↑ The light-B is split almost equally by the photodetector (= axis 45^o ), which split weakened light-B intensity is too weak to detect by the photodetector.

↑ This case of only one photon detected is discarded, Not used as the legitimate result of quantum entanglement experiments due to loss of photons.

In Fig.13-② case, both the lights-A and B with the same 30^o polarization hit ( + + ) part of the polarizers.  Light-A whose polarization (= 30^o ) almost parallel to the polarizer-A's axis (= 0^o ) can pass the polarizer-A, and its light intensity is strong enough to detect as a (fictional) photon by the photodetector.

↑ Light-B whose polarization (= 30^o ) is also almost parallel to the polarizer-B's axis (= 45^o ) can pass the polarizer-B, and its light intensity is strong enough to detect as a (fictional) photon by the photodetector.

Probability of both photons passing polarizers is cos² 45^o = 1/2

In Fig.13-③ case, both the lights-A and B hit ( - + ) part of polarizers.  Light-A whose polarization 60^o is almost perpendicular to the polarizer-A's axis (= 0^o ) is reflected from the polarizer-A and detected as a (fictional) photon by the photodetector.

And the light-B whose polarization (= 60^o ) is almost parallel to the polarizer-B's axis (= 45^o ) can pass the polarizer-B, which light intensity is also strong enough to detect as a (fictional) photon by the photodetector.

↑ As a result, the probability of one photon passing the polarizer and the other photon reflected from the polarizer is 0.5 (= cos² 45^o ) which can violate Bell inequality without the (illusory) faster-than-light quantum entanglement.

 

(Fig.14)   Light-A hits polarizers-A1 (= axis 0^o ) or A2 (= axis = 60^o ), while light-B hits polarizers-B1 (= axis 30^o ) or B2 (= axis 90^o )

Bell inequality violation does Not need (unrealistic) quantum entanglement.

Here we explain the case of violating Bell inequality by using classical light wave without the (illusory faster-than-light ) quantum entanglement spooky action.

In Fig.14 using the lights-A and B with the same parallel (= but random ) polarization.  Light-A hits polarizers-A1 (= axis 0^o ) or polarizer-A2 (= axis = 60^o ), while light-B hits polarizers-B1 (= axis 30^o ) or B2 (= axis 90^o ).

When the light is detected by the "pass (or reflect )" photodetector as a (fictional) photon, it is "+1 (or -1 )"

 

Bell inequality considering only cases of two lights' polarizations are independent of each other does Not consider preparing two lights with the same polarization, so its Bell inequality violation (= caused just by artificially -prepared classical polarized lights' pair ) cannot prove quantum entanglement.

(Fig.15)  Bell inequality violation can Not deny realism nor prove (faster-than-light) quantum entanglement.

Bell inequality violation does Not prove the spooky quantum superluminal entanglement.

Fig.15 shows Bell inequality (= CHSH = Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt ) where S is said to not exceed "2" when two lights (or two atoms ) satisfy (local) realism or no faster-than-light quantum entanglement, which is wrong.

The light-A hits the polarizer-A1 and light-B hits the polarizer-B1. When one light passes the polarizer (= +1 ), and the other light reflects from the polarizer (= -1 ), A1B1 become -1 (= +1 × -1 ).

When both these lights-A and B pass (= +1 × +1 = +1 ) or reflect from (= -1 × -1 = + 1 ) their polarizers, A1B1 become + 1

So the average A1B1 value means the average probability of both two lights passing and reflecting from the polarizers (= AB = + 1 ) minus the probability of one light passing and the other light reflected from the polarizer (= AB = -1 ).

As shown above, only when A1B1 (or A1B2, A2B1 .. ) are separable (= A1B1 → |A1| and |B1| ), or the results of A1 and B1 are independent of each other, Bell inequality S not exceeding 2 must be satisfied

S = A1(B1 - B2) + A2 (B1 + B2) = (B1-B2) + (B1+B2) = 2B1 ≤ 2,  because A1, A2, B1, B2 ≤ 1 ( this-(9)-(11),  this-p.10,  this-p.2,  this-p.10 )  ← No violation of Bell inequality.

When two classical lights are artificially adjusted to have the same polarization, A1B1.. are inseparable, which violates Bell inequality even without the spooky quantum entanglement.

So when we artificially prepare two lights with the same (or perpendicular ) polarizations, A1B1 (or A1B2.. ) are inseparable (= probability of both lights passing or reflecting from each other is affected by the other light's polarizer's axis angle ), which can violate this Bell inequality even without quantum (superluminal) entanglement spooky action.

According to the (illusory faster-than-light) quantum entanglement theory, the average of A1B1 is equal to the cos² θ_A1-B1 (= probability of both lights-A and B passing or reflected from polarizers ) - sin² θ_A1-B1 (= probability of one light passing and the other light reflected from polarizers ) = cos 2θ_A1-B1 ( this-p.2-3,  this-p.2-right,  this-p.9-10 ).

↑ θ_A1-B1 is the angle difference between two polarizers A1 and B1.

Using this case of polarizers, we can show violation of Bell inequality ( S = 2.5 > 2 ) by realistic classical light wave without the (faster-than-light) quantum entanglement.

Bell inequality violation, which can be explained by artificially preparing two classical lights or atoms, does Not need (unreal) quantum superluminal entanglement.

As a result, there is No evidence of the faster-than-light quantum entanglement spooky action that can be naturally explained by realistic classical light wave (+ photodetector's threshold ).

Bell inequality is naturally violated even without the (faster-than-light) quantum entanglement, when two lights with correlated (= artificially-adjusted ) polarization (or two particles with the correlated states ) are artificially prepared.

↑ When two lights with the same polarization are prepared, one polarizer's axis angle affects (= is correlated with ) the probability of both lights passing or reflected from the polarizers, which does Not correspond to Bell inequality based on the assumption that each light measurement must be independent of each other.

Bell equality violation other than light is also caused by just artificially preparing two atoms with the same (or opposite ) energy levels, Not by quantum spooky (superluminal) entanglement.

In cases of two atomic entanglement without using light polarization, they just artificially prepared two atoms whose energy levels are the opposite ( or same ), and illuminate them by laser light with some phases.

↑ This Bell inequality violation in atomic (or ions' ) entanglement is caused just by artificial preparation of two atomic energy levels, Not by the (illusory superluminal ) quantum entanglement ( this-p.2-left prepared two Be+ ions having the same energy states of ↑↑ or ↓↓ with No faster than light spooky entanglement ).

Physicists often use the (unphysical) negative or imaginary amplitude (only) in papers, which means just some artificially-adjusted laser light or manipulation to artificially match the Bell inequality violation, which is irrelevant to the spooky faster-than-light entanglement ( this-p.6-11,   this-p.2-(4). p.3-(6)(7) ).

 

Feel free to link to this site.