If you read through the list of Bell test experiments [1], you will discover that not all of them are done with photons, for example »Violation of Bell’s inequality in Josephson phase qubits« [2].
You complained - without providing any substantive arguments why this might be an issue - that all Bell test experiments use polarizers, I pointed out that you are wrong. I have no idea what you are complaining about now, what is »[...] qualities of the mediums that quantum uncertainty affects [...]« even supposed to mean? You are obviously far outside of your area of competence. If not, just do the experiment, write the paper, and collect your Nobel Prize, no need to argue with clueless people on the web.
A Josephson junction doesn't even trap any single actual physical particle. It's just a standing wave of electrical current trapped in a bounded array of geometrically crafted slabs of superconductors and insulators. It's a phenomenon that arises from the construction of the device.
Unlike fundamental particles such as photons and electrons, there is nothing substantial about the state represented by the standing wave qubit trapped in a circuit operated by a Josephson junction device. Destroy the device (or nevermind that, just never place it in a dewar flask chilled to 4 degrees kelvin, to activate it) and the phenomenon doesn't even exist. So much for whether or not matter or energy can never be created nor destroyed.
To sit there and state that, on paper, this is the same thing as an individual electron emitted as beta decay is, well... fundamentally flawed.
Just to be clear, these are experimental results that are statistically impossible assuming a classical physics. Are you actually worried that they are somehow studying the wrong self-evidently non-classical thing, or what?
"The zero voltage state describes one of the two distinct dynamic behaviors displayed by the phase particle, and corresponds to when the particle is trapped in one of the local minima in the washboard potential. [...] With the phase particle trapped in a minimum, it has zero average velocity and therefore zero average voltage. [...] The voltage state is the other dynamic behavior displayed by a Josephson junction, and corresponds to the phase particle free-running down the slope of the potential, with a non-zero average velocity and therefore non-zero voltage."
So, we're not even talking about actual fundamental subatomic particles anymore. We're talking about phase oscillations, and renaming that as if it were a "particle" because, hey, particle/wave duality, so why not?
Hand-wavey math permits us to equivocate that a current induced on a wire, by way of the transfer of many actual electrons across substrates, can serve to prove the premise of a "teleportation device" also.
See? If we play our game of three-card monte, change phase oscillations, wiggle our noses, and tilt our heads a little, it's all very obvious that faster-than-light information transfer can be generalized to fit in the same picture, because this tuning fork makes that tuning fork ring in harmony, but only when we choose to notice.
I’m not sure I follow your argument, but if I understand you right, I don’t believe what you’re quoting is relevant. From the article you are (I think?) criticizing:
We measure a Bell signal S of 2.0732 ± 0.0003, exceeding the maximum value |S| = 2 for a classical system by 244 standard deviations. In the experiment, we deterministically generate the entangled state, and measure both qubits in a single-shot manner, closing the “detection loophole”[11]. Since the Bell inequality was designed to test for non-classical behavior without assuming the applicability of quantum mechanics to the system in question, this experiment provides further strong evidence that a macroscopic electrical circuit is really a quantum system [7].https://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~martinisgroup/papers/Ansmann20...
That says in plain English that they have not assumed that this system behaves according to quantum principles. In fact, it is precisely the opposite: the quantum nature of this system is a conclusion of their results. It would be statistically impossible for any system following classical rules to produce the same data.
(It bears repeating that the math underlying that conclusion is truly not very complex, and it is very, very well studied. If you can show that it’s flawed somehow, don’t bother publishing— just post your proof here and I’ll, uh... pick up the Nobel for you.)
The only caveat is that this experiment closes the detection loophole, but not the locality loophole; it is theoretically possible that a classical signal could be sent from one qubit to the other quickly enough to fabricate this data. There’s no particular reason to suspect a secret signal is in play, but it isn’t theoretically prohibited.
Assuming you haven’t found a flaw in their mathematics, and that you aren’t alleging that the researchers deliberately fabricated their data, the locality loophole is your best (and likely only) avenue to dispute their conclusions. However, if you wish to pursue that, you should keep in mind that there are many other experiments which close the locality loophole but not the detection loophole, and, since 2015, several that close both. Three-card monte may be a better investment of your time.
Uh, wow, at no point have I made the claim that an electrical circuit is not a quantum system. Nor have I claimed that they are incapable of simulating quantum phenomena. Quite the very opposite.
What I did clearly state, and insist as quite relevant, is that entanglement and double slit experiments are hocus pocus and irrelevant distractions. In fact, I stated that this experiment says basically nothing because it merely simulates quantum phenomena within a circuit.
Hello? Yes. Electrons are quantum entities, and assuredly interact with photons which are also quantum entities. This is demonstrated by the photo-electric effect, which we can all notice by placing tin foil in a microwave. Therefore a circuit is indeed a quantum system, since it assuredly deals in electrons.
Wow! Didn't even need to publish a paper about qubits to draw that conclusion! Amazing!
The implication here is that Bell is waste of time, and so is his theorum: such that emission doesn't determine state, especially when you don't look at it.
Great, thanks Bell. I'll be sure to not look at anything until I want to know what it is. True genius at work.
The experiment demonstrates quantum entanglement. I gather you don’t believe this. So how about this: I don’t believe you.
I don’t believe that you could, even theoretically, produce the data from a loophole-free Bell test without invoking superdeterminism, superluminality, or quantum entanglement.
Can you describe how this would be theoretically possible?
The experiment certainly demonstrates "something" in terms of how not to "measure" relativistic effects with macroscopic tools...
And yet, with relativistic particles, the wild claims are made that splitting photons through a substrate, and then passing them through the wall of a polarizing lens, means we can declare ourselves capable of rewriting and erasing history. Eh, not quite.
But hey, where there's smoke, there's fire, so something must be true, right? Let's just make up whatever.
1. Do you think all Bell test experiments ever done were flawed, i.e. none of the observed Bell inequality violations were real?
2. If so, do you think a non-flawed Bell test experiment could be done?
3. If so, do you have a definite opinion about whether or not it would yield a Bell inequality violation?
4. If so, would it yield a Bell inequality violation or not.
5. If you think all Bell test experiments ever done were flawed, can you pick one, preferably one commonly considered a good one, and point out what exactly you think the flaw in the experiment is?
6. If you think Bell inequality violations are or could be real, how do you want to explain them?
Note that those are all yes no questions, well, at least all but the last two. I don't need and want more than a yes or no for the first four because from your comments alone it is not clear, at least to me, what your position actually is.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments#Notable_...
[2] https://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~martinisgroup/papers/Ansmann20...