Last Update April 5 2020

In the following the word

By 1935 though these Quantum

That year Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, in a paper called EPR, demonstrated that hidden variables were underlying Quantum Mechanics

Almost thirty years later in 1964 John Stewart Bell in a disclosure now called "Bell's Inequalities" challenged EPR.

Bell's inequalities stated that should some physical experiments show that Quantum

Alain Aspect experiments in the 1980's definitely justified Quantum Mechanics theory.

As a consequence in science,

Reversing this trend, in 2017 this author uncovered the hidden, yet evident variable underlying Quantum entanglement

Beware, the following is considered to be wrong, and simply disregarded, by most professional physicists.

Nevertheless physicists accomplished breathtaking measures and made astonishing discoveries concerning these entangled pairs.

First, in Quantum mechanics, the 2 particles of any entangled pair are identical twins; all entangled pairs are furthermore identical, all entangled pairs occur under a common unique and identical format, which is independent of the particles characteristics.

This common and universal format, called Quantum State, occurs under a number of various eventual yet incompatible occurrences, which justify the

Rather than relying on

In classical physics the particles involved are polarized, having a magnetic North Pole pointing or oriented in any direction within the full spectrum extending from 0

And to emphasize the discripency between Quantum and Classical Physics these angular orientations are ignored in Quantum Mechanics. In Quantum Mechanics these angular orientations are irrelevant and do not exist until the measures occur at which time they become suddenly measurable and well defined.

Now getting back to Classical Physics, the two tilted red-green bars labeled with an "n" (for North Pole) of Figure 1 represent two particles of an entangled pair

Figure 2 illustrates the experiment's fundamental features; two detectors are set on either sides of the Emitter; these detectors are polarized entities akin to magnets represented here by colored circles with a diameter separating the North Pole (N) half circumference represented in GREEN from the South (S) pole represented in RED. The Left Detector is oriented at Θ

The words "should be flashing" and "expected to flash" have been used because, as shown in the following,

Having in mind that the 2 particles of any pair have identical orientation, Figure 3 shows that all of the pairs oriented from 0

Yet the pairs oriented from 0

All in all only one third of the pairs between 0

And for the pairs oriented from 180

**In this Classical explicit interpretation, one third of the pairs should flash identical colors; two thirds of the pairs should flash differing colors.
This text is in red as experiments ran later proved this explicit reasoning to be wrong!**

Note that these

In the early 20th century Quantum mechanics following Equation providing

The detectors orientations Θ_{LD} and Θ_{RD} can be each given any values from 0^{0} to 360^{0}; Quantum Mechanics Equation 1 provides the probability of pairs yielding same and differing colors.

**When the detectors angles are set at Θ _{LD} = 0^{0} and Θ_{RD} = 120^{0}, as in Figures 2 and 3, Quantum mechanics (Equation 1) predicts that same colors (either GREEN GREEN or RED RED) will be flashed one-quarter of the times, instead of one-third of the time, and opposite colors (either RED GREEN or GREEN RED) will be flashed three-quarters of the time, instead of two-thirds of the time.**

This text is in green as experiments ran later proved this Quantum Statistics to fit reality.

These *statistical* predictions are definitely contradicting the *explicit* outcome just described in section 2. above.

By 1925 both the Classical *explicit* outcome (section 2. above) and this contradictory Quantum Mechanics *statistical* prediction were well established.

No physical experiments were yet performed though; nobody knew whether the *explicit* explanation or this Equation 1 contradictory *statistics* would be confirmed by experiments.

Because the

Furthermore in order to depart from our human *explicit* reasoning, the two particles of any pair would have to communicate and instruct each other how to behave instantly over distance at time of measure in order to comply; and such instantaneous communication contradicts Einstein's relativity in which no signal can be transferred faster than light.

This aspect of Quantum Mechanics has been given the name of nonlocality.

While justifying Quantum mathematics

In 1964 John Stewart Bell took the initiative; he came up with his famous inequalities, establishing that should future physical experiments justify Quantum Mechanics

The first physical experiments and undisputable measures that occurred in the 1980's definitely showed that Quantum

Now according to Bell's famous Inequalities, which has been the consensus for over the next 50 years, not only our human

Once more beware, the following language and equation is denied by most professional physicists; those I contacted simply abnegate the following, even refusing to look at it.

For instance the following equation and explanations have been brought to a physics professor's attention, who replied that angle orientations do not exist in the quantum world (period); think of it, one must conclude that entangled pairs, somehow are occurring in a "real world" that is "non existing".

In Equation 2 the particles' reorientations bring to mind the refraction phenomenon, which involves the deflection of the appearance of a rod partly immerged under water; the words reorientation and reoriented, rather than refraction and refracted, have been specifically used in this web page to point out that the pheonomenon studied is not refraction.

Provided the pairs are evenly distributed when emitted, those with tilts between 0In order to match the physical measures and Quantum Mechanics

Equation 2 contradicts Bell's inequalities, which states that no

**When the detectors are oriented 120 ^{0} apart as in Figure 3, the particles evenly tilted from 0^{0} to 135^{0} when emitted will be, according to Equation 2, reoriented and measured between 0^{0} and 120^{0} by both Detectors; these explicit reorientations precisely coincide with the physical measures and Quantum mechanics statistics.**

This explicit Interpretation is written in green because it is in agreement with both experiments and Quantum Mechanics statistics.

Please note that the 0

Above section 2. former

Whereas Quantum Mechanics provides the overall correct distribution of the measures at once, that is through a single calculation using Equation 1, the

- Equation 2 requires 5 mathematical operations to find out the reorientation of a single particle; and these five operations would have to be successively repeated a great number of times on a great number of particles to be chosen evenly distributed over the 360
^{0}spectrum. - Finally besides these cumbersome calculations, each calculated reorientation would have to be confronted to both detectors and be subsequently compiled to verify that the results provided by Equation 2 agree with Quantum Mechanics Equation 1
*statistical*results.

The computer simulation led to the discovery that the 2 electrons of a pair must be individually polarized by their respective detectors when entering the latter, the whole process being resumed as follows:

- First the electrons are individually polarized by, and in the amount of, their respective detectors orientations. This is providing to the 2 electrons of any pair an equal orientation, or aligning them yet taking in account their respective orientations when emitted. That amounts at relating the two electrons behaviors, in accordance with each other as in Quantum Mechanics; yet because it is also taking in account the respective detectors' orientations, the whole process replaces Quantum Mechanics alleged mutual interaction over distance.
- Then the individual diffractions are occuring on each side again individually by their own detectors.

The reorientations shown Figure 4 have been attained using above application; it illustrates *explicit* mathematics Equation 2; and as just mentioned, because the 2 particles of any pair when measured have been given identical orientations (through their individual polarizations), each red and green lines in Figure 4 represent a pair orientation as well as each particle's orientation of that pair. An assertion that can be verified running the computer simulation proposed above.

I have been told that the computer program I wrote is concerning a specific case, and not the general phenomenon. My answer is that my program precisely simulates Alain Aspect experiment, which is the quintessential case on which all of Quantum Mechanics is based.

Someone told me, you can design whatever you please using a computer language or code. And that is true, using Quantum Mechanics above equation 1, the computer code will provide the right results.

So I must concede the following:

When the detectors are respectively set at 0 and 120 degrees, local reality equation 2 independently applied to each electron (no interaction at distance between the 2 simultaneous measures is occorring) provides one quarter three quarter distribution. Showing clearly LOCAL-REALITY is in force.

Unfortunately I have been unable to this day (April 2020) to make computer code provide the same results (one quarter three quarter distribution) for other settings than A = 0 B = 120, such as A = 30 degrees B = 150 degrees for instance.

In such cases (other than A = 0, B = 120) my PHP code is taking in account the difference between the 2 detectors to come up with the right outcome; this means that in practically all other cases (other than A = 0, B = 120) I have to take in account non-locality (Quantum Mechanics logic, that is the angular difference between the 2 detectors) along local-reality equation 2 in order to provide the correct answer.

Another goal is to provide as best as possible a physical explanation of the phenomenon as done above.

Equation 2, which predicts precisely the particles' individual behaviors, abolishes the

And that is going along EPR's hidden variables that disavow

When the detectors are set 120

Nonlocality, which states that when one particle is measured the other complies at distance, then cannot refer to the colors measured. Nonlocality must then refer to the fact that the

Based on the wrong

This interpretation has the definite advantage to confirm that Einstein and colleagues mathematics is right after all. The hidden variable is evidently the particles individual orientations.

From a purely logical point of view, should

And from a very practical point of view please note that

An official objection to above quantum scale certainty rehabilitation, is that there is no angle orientation in the quantum world; but that objection does not hold for several reasons: first at emission the particles orientations have to be evenly distributed; suppose the particles orientations at emission are restrained between zero and ninety degrees, the measures will not coincide to quantum statistics; in short the particles orientations are of the essence right at emission; then in quantum theory the 2 particles of a pair are complementary, which means that they are of opposite directions and that involves the particles directions before the measure takes place; finally the measures themseves not only involve but are all about individual particles' orientations. Contradicting the arguments of those who are advocating uncertainty, the particle's orientations permeate quantum mathematics throughout and are integral part of the quantum world and reality.

As a final note, while we know with certainty that life on Earth has a finite time span, meaning that we know with certainty that we will die, we human are nevertheless not given the ability to precisely predict all aspects of our own future. In spite of the Natural Laws, that among other rule with certainty over entangled pairs, our human brain can only be uncertain about many other things.

Phys. Rev. 47, 777-780 (1935).

Also available on internet at: EPR

[2] Bell, J.S.: On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox. Phys. 1, 195-200 (1964)

Available on internet at: Bell's inequalities

[2 a] For everybody explanation: Bell's inequalities for everybody

[3] Aspect, A., Grangier, P., Roger, G.: Experimental realization of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm Gedanken experiment: a new violation of Bell's inequalities. Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 91-94 (1982) Available on Internet: Alain Aspect experiments

[4] American Journal Of Physics; Volume 49; Number 10; Page 940; October 1981.

Bringing home the atomic world: Quantum mysteries for anybody. By N.D.Mermin.

Also available on internet: Mermin's paper

[5] See On how the 33% distribution is set ignoring the particles orientations

[6] Quote found Dec 19 2019 on Wikipedia at Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia title: Bell's theorem

[7] Quote also found Dec 19 2019 on Wikipedia at Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia title: Quantum entanglement

It turns out that the origin chosen to refer the detectors orientations is irrelevant. We can then choose Detector B as being the

Both Equation 1 and its

Equation 3 modifies θ

In these conditions one quarter identical measures instead of one third identical measures will occur, provided the emitted electrons are evenly distributed over the full 360

In the end Quantum Mechanics extraordinary alchemy mends nicely with local reality.

**Contact:** henriJMsalles[at]gmail.com

**Copyright © by Henri Salles.** You have the permission to reproduce, print, distribute and post the contents of this webpage, provided you mention the link: epr-substantiation.info by Henri Salles