Physics Essays

Copy of E-Mail Notification

Physics Essays, published by Physics Essays Publication through Cenveo Publisher Services
Dear Author,
Congratulations on having your paper accepted for publication in the Physics Essays Publication through Cenveo
Publisher Services. Your page proof is available in PDF format from the PE Proof Download & Corrections site
here:
http://115.111.50.156/jw/AuthorProofLogin.aspx?pwd=00a9c3d797ed&CA=ES
Login: your e-mail address
Password: 00a9c3d797ed
Please keep this email in case you need to refer back to it in the future.
You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader software to view the file. This is free software and a download link is provided
when you log in to view your proofs.
Responsibility of detecting errors rests with the author. Please review the page proofs carefully and:
1) Answer any queries on the first page Author Query Form
2) Proofread any tables and equations carefully
3) Check to see that any special characters have translated correctly
RETURNING CORRECTIONS:
To return corrections, please use the PEP Proof Download & Corrections Submission Site (link above) and provide
either:
1) Annotated PDF
2) Text entry of corrections, with line numbers, in the text box provided
3) Additional files, as necessary, can also be uploaded through the site.
SPECIAL NOTES:
Your Login and Password are valid for a limited time. Please reply within 48 hours. Your prompt attention to and
return of page proofs will speed the publication of your work.
For all correspondence, please include your article ID (Saul_28_4) in the subject line.
This e-proof is to be used only for the purpose of returning corrections to the publisher.
If you have any questions, please contact: Mary.OBrien@cenveo.com.
Sincerely,
Mary O'Brien
Journal Production Manager

REPRINT ORDER FORM 2015 PHYSICS ESSAYS (PE)

Note: These prices are for the regular size and format of the journal, as
well as standard covers. Additional charges will be made for any
deviation in size or format on reprints or covers, including color
figures. Please reply to the questionnaire on the right.
REPRINT MAILING: Reprints mail approximately two weeks after
order is received. Delivery time will vary depending on geographic
location. Please allow sufficient time for delivery. Please return this
form promptly to:
Physics Essays Publication
P.O. Box 8141, Station T
Ottawa, Ontario K1G 3H6
Canada
Via FAX to:

(613) 421-4423

Via E-MAIL to:

only)

admin@physicsessays.com (PDF attachment

1.

Do you have color figures in your article?

Yes
No

2.

If you have color figures, would you like them to be

reproduced in color in the reprints (additional charges
will apply)?
Yes
No

3.

Do you want covers for your article?

Yes
No

4.

The prices indicated in the Table below are for standard

covers. Do you want custom made covers reproducing
the cover of Physics Essays (additional charges will
apply)?
Yes
No

If you have answered Yes to question 2 and/or 4, a quotation of

the additional charges will be provided.as soon as this request for
reprints is received.

For questions about placing your order or making payment:

admin@physicsessays.com

Full Author(s):___________________________________________________________________________________
Full Title:________________________________________________________________________________________
Volume No._____________Issue No. ______Year___________pp.__________
Date:_________________________
PRICE LIST FOR REPRINTS AND FOR COVERS
Shipping and handling charges See Table at p. 2

TERMS: Prepayment required. Only orders for lots as indicated below are accepted

Copies
50
100
200
300
Additional

50sover 300

1-2
Pages
$88.00
112.00
188.10
222.30

3-4
Pages
$110.00
140.00
235.13
277.88

5-8
Pages
$170.00
233.75
377.91
457.85

9-12
Pages
$240.00
344.73
578.29
693.95

13-16
Pages
$292.50
385.06
652.13
785.08

17-20
Pages
$339.50
424.38
720.10
862.44

21-24
Pages
$373.75
445.63
757.10
909.51

25-28
Pages
$405.00
470.32
799.78
965.10

29-32
Pages
$426.25
487.82
832.15
996.15

Additional
4 pp. over 32
$57.00
75.00
75.00
75.00

$104.00
142.50
231.00
294.00

29.64

37.05

61.05

92.53

104.68

114.99

121.27

128.68

132.82

75.00

98.00

Covers

Contact PE at admin@physicsessays.com before placing single-article orders of over 1000 copies.

All prices in this Reprint Order Form are in U.S. dollars.

REPRINT ORDER
Total Number of Reprints Wanted:___________
Reprint Orders must have only one BILL TO address and one SHIP TO address (not necessarily the same).
To Be Shipped As Follows:
Number Without Covers___________ (in multiple of lots as indicated above) With Covers_____________ (in multiple of lots as indicated above)
SHIP TO:

FORM Physics Essays December 2014

Date__________________

BILL TO:

Page 1 of 2

Signature of Authorized Agent ___________________________________________

PAYMENT INSTRUCTIONS
If your institution requires a separate purchase order to cover billing, please have your purchasing agent include the same identifying
information as appears on this form [Journal, Author(s), Title]. Mail, e-mail, or fax the purchase order directly to the addresses on page 1 of
this form.
Shipping and handling charges*
The following charges apply:
Shipping Cost per first 50 reprints

Destination
U.S.A.
All other countries

1-4 pages
$18
$60

For each additional 4 pages

$8
$22

Covers
$16
$60

Cost per additional lots of 50 in excess of the first 50,

and for each additional 4 pages in excess of the first 4
pages
Shipping Cost of Reprints
Shipping Cost of Covers
$1.50
$0.60
$12
$3

*Shipping by FedEx in the USA and by WWDS Proof of Delivery Service in 5-9 days in all other countries.

Purchase of:
Reprints No.______of No. of pages each. _____
Shipping Charges (U.S.A).
Shipping Charges (All Other Countries)

U.S.$
U.S.$
U.S.$

_________
_________
_________

SUB-TOTAL
Canadian HST/GST**

U.S.$
U.S.$

_________
_________

U.S.$

_________

TOTAL AMOUNT DUE

**Canadian residents please add to the SUB-TOTAL:

HST (10%) if resident of Saskatchewan; HST (12%) if resident of British Columbia; HST (13%) if resident of Ontario, New Brunswick,
Manitoba, and Newfoundland and Labrador; HST (14%) if resident of Prince Edward Island; HST (14.975%) if resident of Qubec; HST
(15%) if resident of Nova Scotia; GST (5%) if resident of any other Province or Territory.
Please fill in all information for method of payment below.

Check (enclosed) (For payment by check in U.S. dollars, the check must be drawn on or through a financial institution in the United
States, Canada, or Puerto Rico).
Amex

Visa

MasterCard

Discover

Diners Club International

Is your card in U.S. dollars?***

Yes
No
*** For payment by credit card in currency different from U.S. dollars, or for payment with Diners Club International, the above amount in U.S. dollars may be
converted into Canadian dollars, at the exchange rate of 1 U.S.$ = 1.36 Cdn$.

Credit Card #__________________________________________

Exp. Date __________ CCV****______________

****CCV Code = Digit-Verification Code or CCV stands for Credit Card Validation. The CCV is a 3 or 4 digit code printed on the reverse side of most credit cards, or

a 4 digit code printed on the right at the front of the American Express card. This is an extra security measure to ensure that you have access or physical possession of
the credit card itself in order to use the CCV code.

______________________________________________
Authorized Signature (if paying by credit card)
______________________________________________
Print or type Authorized Signature of Cardholder

For electronic bank transfer, the coordinates of our bank are*****:

Bank: Royal Bank of Canada, 585 Montreal Road, Unit 15, Ottawa, Ontario, K1K 0V1 Canada, Tel. (613) 749-4579
IBAN or Bank Number: 003
Account Name or Beneficiary: Physics Essays Publication, 2012 Woodglen Cres., Ottawa, Ontario, K1J 6G4 Canada
Account Type: U.S. Dollar Account
Account Number: 4501417
Routing or Transit Number: 00666
SWIFT Code: ROYCCAT2

*****Payment in U.S. dollars must be Net, i.e., one must add $25.00 for our bank charges, AND the bank charges of the originating bank.

FORM Physics Essays December 2014

Page 2 of 2

AUTHOR QUERY FORM

Journal: Physics Essays

Physics Essays
Publication

Please provide your responses and any corrections by

annotating this PDF and uploading it to Cenveo eProof
website as detailed in the Welcome email.

Article Number: PEP150080

Dear Author,
Author please indicate the correct color processing option from the list below:
h Figure number(s) ________ appear as color in print. Author confirms that any associated mandatory fees will apply for
figures printed in color.
h Figure number(s) ________ appear as color online only, there will be no fees applied.
h This paper currently does not include any color figures for online or print. Color figures should be applied to Figure
number(s) ________ . Figures to print in color are ________, remaining figure are to have online color only.
Below are the queries associated with your article; please answer all of these queries before sending the proof back to Cenveo.
Location in
article

Query / Remark: click on the Q link to navigate

to the appropriate spot in the proof. There, insert your comments as a PDF annotation.

AQ1

Please check the edit made in the title.

AQ2

Please check definition of EPR.

AQ3

Please check the hierarchy of section headings.

AQ4

Please check edits made in Ref. 6.

AQ5

Please update Ref. 7 with volume number, page number, and year if published.

Thank you for your assistance.

J_ID: PEP DOI: 10.4006/0836-1398-28.4.561 Date: 3-November-15

Stage:

Page: 561

Total Pages: 7

PHYSICS ESSAYS 28, 4 (2015)

The emperor has no nonlocality

AQ1

Lukas A. Saula)

1
2

14 Russel Court, Oxford OX2 6JH, United Kingdom

(Received 6 June 2015; accepted 26 October 2015; published online xx xx xxxx)

Abstract: The EinsteinPodolskyRosen (EPR) experiment and certain predictions of quantum

mechanics in theoretical and experimental forms are sometimes described as exhibiting nonlocal
action. We describe here an interpretation of one oft-discussed EPR experiment with a locally
realistic model. We demonstrate a consistent description based on probabilistic measurement for
Mermin and Aspect EPR setups, and show how Bells theorem applies. Quantum nonlocality is
shown to be an interpretation dependent on deterministic measurement and vanishes when a
treatment of probabilistic measurement and relevant information theory is included.
C 2015 Physics Essays Publication. [http://dx.doi.org/10.4006/0836-1398-28.4.561]
V

5
6
7
8
9
10

AQ2

11

18

Resume: Lexperience dEinstein-Podolsky-Rosen et certaines predictions de la mecanique

quantique sont parfois decrites comme presentant une action non locale. Nous decrivons ici une
interpretation localement realiste dune experience EPR souvent discutee. Nous donnons ici une
description coherente, basee sur la mesure probabiliste pour configurations EPR de Mermin et de
Aspect, et nous montrons exactement comment le theore`me de Bell sapplique. La non-localite
quantique disparat quand un traitement de mesure probabiliste et de la theorie de linformation
pertinente sont entendu.

19

Key words: Quantum Mechanics; EPR; Nonlocality; Bells Theorem.

12
13
14
15
16
17

AQ3

20

I. PROBABILISTIC MEASUREMENT

21

This term attempts to capture the essence of what is evident from experimental measurements: the outcome of a single external measurement of some physical systems is not
completely determined by internal variables of the object
being measured. Rather, the outcome of a measurement of a
system is determined by the physical interaction of internal
variables in that system with external variables of the
measurement device.
This is evident in the language and practical use of
measurements. We are used to hearing measurements
reported with error bars and standard deviations implying
that the measurements have at some level a probabilistic
nature. When error bars are not given they are often assumed
to exist at the level of the least significant digit of the
reported measurement. Measuring instruments are calibrated
(when they are calibrated properly) to some specified
probable error, again implying our understanding of the
probabilistic nature of the relevant measurement. The statistics of probabilistic measurement and the proper interpretation of measurement results form a vital area of study often
lumped under the umbrella of statistics.
We can in one way see that this probabilistic nature of
measurement is always present by demonstrating equivalence with a communications channel, in general. A measurement must be reported or communicated in some way as
information. Information theory tells us quite clearly that a
communications channel is a probability distribution

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47

function which maps some inputs to some outputs (for a

good review, see, e.g., Ref. 1). We can conclude without hesitation then that measurement, being communicative in nature, is probabilistic. It turns out that this behavior does not
necessarily imply that anyone is playing dice, as Einstein
famously quipped. Rather, the probabilistic nature of
measurement exists because an observer does not have an
infinite amount of information available when making a
measurement.
Consider, for example, a particle detector consisting of a
photomultiplier tube and suitable pulse detection electronics
(see Fig. 1). The detector is active and open to a certain
direction. In that direction, we consider a sphere of volume V
just outside the detector but just adjacent to the active area.
A simple model of this measuring device and detection
volume would suggest that the reading of the device is determined exactly by the flux of particles at a time t entering the
device in this volume V.
In fact, the behavior of a real particle detector in this scenario and its reading at a time t d is quantified with a
response function which is not perfectly determined by what
is specified in the volume V at the time t. There is a probability that any incoming particle in V will reach a dead area on
the detector and will not register, as the detector is not
perfectly efficient nor perfectly uniform. The reading on the
detector could depend on factors not entirely contained in V,
at a time t, including, for example, any background cosmic
rays which might produce counts by entering detection areas
from another direction. Electronic fluctuations, other noise,
and positions and motions of individual atoms of detector
components could all have some effect on the measurement.

a)

lsaul@0ffl1ne.com

0836-1398/2015/28(4)/561/6/$25.00

561

C 2015 Physics Essays Publication

V

ID: veeraragavanb Time: 20:29 I Path: //10.18.11.53/Home$/veeraragavanb$/ES-PEP#150080

48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78

J_ID: PEP DOI: 10.4006/0836-1398-28.4.561 Date: 3-November-15

Stage:

Page: 562

Total Pages: 7

562

Physics Essays 28, 4 (2015)

FIG. 1. A detector is pictured as a sampling particle flux from a volume V

at a time t. The reading on the detector is the output of a probabilistic
mapping of variables k internal to the volume V. Adapted from Ref. 2.
79
80
81
82
83
84
85

None of these effects were predictable by considering solely

what went on in the volume V at the time t.
The detector efficiency can also have coupling of
external variables with variables which are local to V. For
example, the probability of detection could vary with the
incoming energy, spin, or other property of incoming
particles in V.

86

II. THE MERMIN GEDANKEN

87

109

In the 1985 edition of Physics Today, a remarkable article is found.2 In it is described the ethos and impact of the
Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosens gedanken experiment and
Bells seminal 1964 paper, outlining debates among many
well renowned physicists. Mermin describes a gedanken
experiment as an example in which the contradiction laid out
in the Bell paper is immediately accessible. Mermins paper
inspired many people struggling with understanding these
phenomena and was further popularized in Penroses book
The Emperors New Mind.3 Although the setup described is
not a perfect analogy with real measurements of spin 1=2 particles, it behooves us to consider it again here. Indeed, it is
answering Mermins challenge here that forms the heart of
this paper and our argument that nonlocal action is in no way
required to explain these phenomena.
The Mermin EinsteinPodolskyRosen (EPR) experiment consists of two detectors separated by some distance
and a source directly between them which emits some
objects toward the detectors. The detectors can each be set to
any one of three settings. Each detector gives a binary measurement. In Mermins paper, he describes this measurement
as turning on either a red or a green light. In some runs of
this experiment, two results are observed:

110
111

(1)

88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108

112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121

(2)

When the settings on the two detectors were identical

(so that they were set in the same direction), the readings were identical (the colors of the lights matched).
When the directional settings of the detectors were
randomized, the readings over time gave random
results, such that one half the times the colors agreed.

These results model the behavior of certain objects in

quantum mechanics. The objects created by the source and
measured could be, for example, spin 1=2 particles, while
the settings of the detectors are equi-angular co-planar

orientations, with 120 separation from one orientation to

another. The remarkable conclusion often drawn from observations (1) and (2) is that there is no local realistic model
that can explain both of these results simultaneously. To
show this, the author claims that to be a locally realistic
model, an object emitted by the source must have the information to predict the color that would appear on the detector
for any orientation. He exhaustively lists all possible combinations of predicted colors that would yield result (1) and
shows that these predicted colors cannot produce result (2).
He urges us in the paper to try to invent some other explanation for these predicted readings of the detectors.

122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133

A. The other explanation

134

To accept this challenge in the spirit of the gedanken

experiment, consider that the objects emitted by the source
are paper envelopes containing inside a number that is an
angle which defines a unit vector ~
r (perpendicular to the line
connecting source and detector). This vector is chosen by a
pseudorandom number generator at the source and written
down twice, sealed in two envelopes which are emitted
simultaneously in opposite directions toward the detectors.
When an envelope arrives at a detector set to one of the
three orientations ~
k, the following procedure is used to set
the color of the detectors light. First, the envelope is opened
and the dot product ~
k~
r is determined. Because both ~
k and
~
r are unit vectors, this dot product is simply equal the cosine
of h, the angle between them. If this dot product is positive,
we then have a chance to turn the green light on proportional
to cosh. If the dot product is negative, there is a chance to
turn the red light on proportional to cosh. A pseudorandom
number generator is used at the detector to decide with these
probabilities whether to turn on the appropriate light.
We consider as one run of our experiment any time
that the envelopes are emitted from the source, and a light is
turned on at both observing platforms A and B. If either one
or the other is not activated, we do not tally the state.
It should be evident that from construction above that
the experimental apparatus will produce both our results (1)
and (2) exactly! If the detectors are in the same orientation
as each other, they will always share the same sign of the dot
product to whichever vector is emitted from the source. This
means that there are only three possible results: (a) both
lights remain off, (b) one light on one light off, and (c) both
lights on and agreeing. For the purposes of our experiment,
with coincidence detection, only those results of type c will
contribute to our experiment as a run and we immediately
see that all runs with the two observers choosing the same
orientation will show equality of light choice. Result (1) will
be satisfied.
If several runs of the experiment are carried out and the
orientations are set at random, the resulting probability of
matching lights will be 1=2. A computer program simulating
this arrangement is included in the Appendix. With our system of envelopes and random number generators at the
detectors, we have exactly duplicated the so called quantum
calculation which predicts result (2) above. The behavior of

135

ID: veeraragavanb Time: 20:29 I Path: //10.18.11.53/Home$/veeraragavanb$/ES-PEP#150080

136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177

J_ID: PEP DOI: 10.4006/0836-1398-28.4.561 Date: 3-November-15

Stage:

Page: 563

Total Pages: 7

Physics Essays 28, 4 (2015)

178
179

563

EPR systems can be explained with ordinary local

measurement.

180

B. Real spin coupled systems

181

While Mermins gedanken experiment is useful to illustrate the supposed paradox of nonlocality in quantum
mechanics, it is important to realize we are not capturing all
the physics of the interaction of spin 1=2 particles with specific detector constructions and geometries. In particular, the
result (1) will not hold precisely in any real experiment. If
two spin 1=2 particles are generated by source with zero net
angular momentum initially, they will be oppositely oriented
and so a better analogy would be to have considered lights of
opposite colors to be lit when the detectors have the same
orientation. No matter, the numbers emitted by the source
could sum to zero rather than being equal (conservation of
angular momentum).
No detector is either 100% efficient or devoid of noise or
background counts so the result (1) could not hold even if
appropriate spin coupled particles could be generated. In
practice, coincidence electronics are used in real EPR type
experiments such as in Ref. 4 and [MODERN XP] to minimize single detections, very much like our simulation does.
Our solution to Mermins challenge is also clearly not capturing all the real physics of spin 1=2 particle detection, but is
an ad-hoc construction which satisfies Mermins criteria. In
reality, a quantized binary measurement of a spin in some
direction will have a probability proportional in some way to
the angle between the detector orientation and the particle
spin.

182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206

207

III. BELLS INEQUALITY REVISITED

208

In Ref. 5, something like a proof by contradiction is

given. An initial assumption is made and labeled as an
assumption of local realism, and then it is shown that a contradiction is arrived at. The assumption begins in his Eq. (1)
 
 
~~
A ~
a; ~
k 61; B b;
k 61:

209
210
211

212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229

Here, A and B are the results of measurements of particle

spin components in directions a and b, and lambda represents
any set of hidden variables which are physical and local to
the particles in question after they are created at the source.
Rather than being an assumption of local realism, this is
an assumption of deterministic measurement, for it suggests
that later measurements A, B at arbitrary accuracy in a distant location are completely determined by the finite final
local variables lambda. Finite local variables in an emitted
particle will not always be able to predict a later measurement at arbitrary accuracy, rather they can only affect the
measurements probabilistically. In chaotic systems, the
uncertainty of a later measurement can even increase exponentially in the uncertainty of earlier hidden variables. Bells
conclusions which derive from this formalism are therefore
mistaken, in that the settings on one measurement device
must not in any way influence another far off device to
explain these statistics.

However, Bells inequality is still applicable. The situation is well described in a publication from Reinhold,6 in
which he shows how Bells inequality applies equally to
macroscopic phenomena (modified from a version by Jay
Sulzberger). This short article is strongly recommended
for those interested in interpreting Bells inequality. His
conclusion:

230

Notice there is nothing in this story about

quantum mechanics, determinism, action at a
distance or any of that stuff. Bells inequalities are
a simple theorem in Probability 101, which gives
conditions on when a set of marginal probability
distributions could have been derived from a
single joint distribution.

237

The nonintuitive results of some quantum physics

experiments exist because some probabilities are not always
intuitive. The birthday problem and the Monty Hall problem are two examples of macroscopic systems that obey
surprising probabilities. In this spirit of the macroscopic
example, I offer my own EPR paradox, aka Schrodingers
Mother:

244

Erwin arrives home and hears that there is a

person in the room on his right, and another
person in the room on his left. He knows one is his
mother and the other is his brother. However,
there is not enough information to determine
which is which. Each person has a 50%
probability of being the mother or the brother.
Erwin decides to look to the room on the right. He
sees: his brother. He immediately knows where his
mother is. At that instant, a non-local phenomenon
occurred. The information that he observed his
brother traveled superluminally and arrived in the
opposite room. The superposed wavefunction there
instantly collapsed and became Schrodingers
mother.

251

232
233
234
235
236

238
239
240
241
242
243

245
246
247
248
249
250

252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265

IV. FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS

266
7

We support the conclusions of authors such as Santos

that the behavior of quantum systems is well described by
local realistic models. Although we describe here only the
Mermin setup, this discussion might be traced back to the
projection postulate of Von Neumann. We have explicitly
shown that a local realistic model does exist that explains
the predictions of EPR experiments, in particular, for the
Mermin setup. In contrast to this conclusion, the Mermin
analysis of the EPR experiment and also some of the Bell
formalism enumerates the possible outcomes of a measurement by assuming that we can tag an emitted particle with
the value of a later measurement. After thus enumerating the
possibilities, we are then left with no local model to describe
the observed probabilities.
Such enumeration before the fact of measurement is
inherently flawed, because measurement is inherently probabilistic. Instead, each measurement apparatus is a consistent
local physical device, with a probabilistic map to the states

ID: veeraragavanb Time: 20:29 I Path: //10.18.11.53/Home$/veeraragavanb$/ES-PEP#150080

231

267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284

J_ID: PEP DOI: 10.4006/0836-1398-28.4.561 Date: 3-November-15

Stage:

Page: 564

Total Pages: 7

564
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299

Physics Essays 28, 4 (2015)

of the system to be measured. Any emergence of statistics

showing apparatus to be correlated will be solely due to the
fact that the devices are indeed physically correlated, for
example, if they are measuring particles from the same
source that obey certain conservation relations and therefore
have related or entangled probabilities. Such correlation
does not require nonlocality nor action at a distance to be
explained.
Our solution is devilishly simple. By allowing a
random process to occur at measurement, as it does in real
life, one can thus explain the predictions of quantum
mechanicsusing quantum mechanics. A physical theory of
local hidden variables coupled with a probabilistic measurement apparatus can reproduce the predictions of quantum
mechanics.

There is certain similarity between this interpretation of

the Mermin EPR and the so-called detection loophole
described by Pearle.8 However, the detection loophole as
usually described is a way in which an experimental system
could still have a deterministic future embedded in local hidden variables as is done in Bells equation (1) above. Such a
loophole also takes the route of coincidence selection that
we take in describing the Mermin system. However, what is
presented here is not a loophole at all. We are not finding a
way that hidden variables alone can still determine future
measurements in a way consistent with quantum mechanics.
Rather, we are pointing out that hidden variables coupled
with a probabilistic measurement apparatus can always
reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics. There is no
need for, nor evidence of nonlocality.

APPENDIX: SIMULATION OF MERMIN EPR

(code also archived at: http://github.com/lukassaul/mermin-sim)

import java.util.Random;
import java.util.Date; // for seeding prng
/**
* Demonstrate local behavior with Mermin-EPR characteristics
* by simulation of D. Mermins Gedanken
*
* Dr. Lukas Saul, Oxford, April. 2015
*/
public class Mermin {
Random r;
int n 10000; // number of tests to perform
public final static void main(String[] args) {
Mermin m new Mermin();
}
/**
* Construct a simulation
*/
public Mermin() {
int answers1[] new int[n]; // for case where settings agree
int answers2[] new int[n]; // for case where settings are random
r new Random(); // init quasirandom generator to current time
for (int i 0; i < n; i) {
// source: choose a random angle (number) from 0 to 2pi for the spin of emitted particles
double angle r.nextDouble()*Math.PI*2.0;
// set the first detector to one of three positions randomly
double pos1 r.nextDouble()*3.0;
double pos1angle 0.0;
if (pos1 > 0.0 & pos1 < 1.0) pos1angle 0.0;
if (pos1 > 1.0 & pos1 < 2.0) pos1angle Math.PI*2.0/3.0;
if (pos1 > 2.0 & pos1 < 3.0) pos1angle Math.PI*4.0/3.0;
// for first test run lets take the second detector to be the same as 1st always
double pos2angle pos1angle;
// for second test run we take second detector to be also random
double pos3 r.nextDouble()*3.0;

ID: veeraragavanb Time: 20:29 I Path: //10.18.11.53/Home$/veeraragavanb$/ES-PEP#150080

300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314

J_ID: PEP DOI: 10.4006/0836-1398-28.4.561 Date: 3-November-15

Stage:

Page: 565

Total Pages: 7

Physics Essays 28, 4 (2015)

565

double pos3angle 0.0;

if (pos3 > 0.0 & pos3 < 1.0) pos3angle 0.0;
if (pos3 > 1.0 & pos3 < 2.0) pos3angle Math.PI*2.0/3.0;
if (pos3 > 2.0 & pos3 < 3.0) pos3angle Math.PI*4.0/3.0;
// ok lets see what the results of this run are
// getresult needs to return 0 (one or both off), 1 (disagree), or 2(agree)
answers1[i] getResult(pos1angle, pos2angle, angle);
answers2[i] getResult(pos1angle, pos3angle, angle);
}
// Output our result of the simulation to stdout
int numTrue2 0; int numFalse2 0;
for (int i 0; i < n; i ) {
if (answers1[i] 2) numTrue1;
if (answers1[i]1) numFalse1;
if (answers2[i]2) numTrue2;
if (answers2[i]1) numFalse2;
}
System.out.println("numTrue 1, numFalse1 " numTrue1 " " numFalse1);
System.out.println("numTrue 2, numFalse2 " numTrue2 " " numFalse2);
// calculate probabilities based on total cases of double coincidence
double prob1 (double)numTrue1/(double)(numTrue1numFalse1);
double prob2 (double)numTrue2/(double)(numTrue2numFalse2);
System.out.println("1st test: " prob1 " 2nd test: " prob2);
}
/**
* This returns 0 if one or both still unlit, 1 if disagree, and 2 if agree
*
* SettingA is detector 1 orientation, SettingB is detecter 2 orientation,
* spin is particle spin (angle)
* settings are 0, 2*pi/3, and 4*pi/3
*/
public int getResult(double settingA, double settingB, double spin) {
// set up our random number generator at each detector
Date d new Date();
// current status of light at each detector (0 off, 1 red, 2 green)
int lightA 0;
int lightB 0;
// we calculate the difference between
//the detector angle and particle angle
double diffA Math.abs(settingA-spin);
double diffB Math.abs(settingB-spin);
// maximum angle between the two is 180 degrees.
// if its more use the equivalent between 0 and PI
if (diffA > Math.PI) diffA 2.0*Math.PI - diffA;
if (diffB > Math.PI) diffB 2.0*Math.PI - diffB;
// There are two choices.
// If we are within 90 degrees we go for green.
// Outside 90 degrees, we go red.
if (diffA > Math.PI/2.0) {
// A has a chance to light up green
if (r.nextDouble() < 0.0-Math.cos(diffA)) lightA 2;
}
if (diffA < Math.PI/2.0) {
// A has a chance to light up red
if (r.nextDouble() < Math.cos(diffA)) lightA 1;

ID: veeraragavanb Time: 20:29 I Path: //10.18.11.53/Home$/veeraragavanb$/ES-PEP#150080

J_ID: PEP DOI: 10.4006/0836-1398-28.4.561 Date: 3-November-15

Stage:

Page: 566

Total Pages: 7

566

Physics Essays 28, 4 (2015)

}
if (diffB > Math.PI/2.0) {
// B has a chance to light up green
if (r.nextDouble() < 0.0-Math.cos(diffB)) lightB 2;
}
if (diffB < Math.PI/2.0) {
// A has a chance to light up red
if (r.nextDouble() < Math.cos(diffB)) lightB 1;
}
// if the lights are the same return true. else return false.
if (lightA 0 | lightB0) return 0;
else if (lightAlightB) return 2;
else if (lightA! lightB) return 1;
return 3; // (never)
}
}
1

T. A. Cover and J. A. Thomas, Elements of Information Theory (Wiley, New York, 2006).
N. D. Mermin, Phys. Today 38(4), 38 (1985).
R. Penrose, The Emperors New Mind (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 1989).
4
A. D. Aspect, J. Dalibard, and G. Roger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 1804 (1982).
5
J. S. Bell, Physics 1, 195 (1964).
6
A. Reinhold, Bells inequalities, a simple explanation, eprint http://theworld.com/~reinhold/bellsinequalities.html. (1987).
7
E. Santos, Towards a realistic interpretation of quantum mechanics providing a model of the physical world, e-print arXiv:1203.5688 [quant-ph].
8
P. M. Pearle, Phys. Rev. D 2, 1418 (1970).
2
3

AQ4
AQ5

ID: veeraragavanb Time: 20:29 I Path: //10.18.11.53/Home$/veeraragavanb$/ES-PEP#150080