Preamble

I've been watching pop science videos and reading forum posts about quantum physics, and I've become convinced that the Bell's Theorem Experiment is wrong, I don't think it disproves local realism.

I recognize that it's arrogant for me to imagine I know better than actual physicists when I'm basically just some idiot who never took physics in college. There's obviously something I'm missing, some technical details I'm overlooking with my weak understanding of how the experiment works. But I'll never figure out what I'm missing if I go around rejecting my own faculties!

Although I've become convinced that the mainstream interpretation is wrong, apparently there is ongoing disagreement about what the experiment proves and the underlying nature of quantum physics. AND my personal idiot belief does not have any practical difference from mainstream interpretations- my whole point is that experiments and technology should work the same either way. So I think there is some wiggle room here for me to actually be correct.

#EinsteinWasRight

Here's the shortest of the video's I've watched on the topic: https://youtu.be/ZuvK-od647c?si=P7EXuLpsThcVyX0c

Many of the explanations I've read/watched vary in certain details, but the underlying logic seems generally the same across what I've found.

Resolution Criteria:

This resolves YES if EITHER of these two criteria are met:

1. Tumbles becomes convinced that local realism is false.

2. Tumbles becomes convinced that the Bell's Theorem Experiment demonstrates that modern quantum physics is incompatible with local realism. (Note that this criteria can be met even if Tumbles maintains an irrational attachment to local realism)

This resolves NO at scheduled close date.

My Current Understanding:

1. Two entangled particles always have opposite "spin" (when measured). The question at hand is how they come to always have opposite spin, and answers can be put into one of three buckets. First explanation, they always have opposite spin because both of their spins are decided when they become entangled. Second explanation, they always have opposite spin because when the first one is measured it updates the second one to match (spooky action at a distance). Third explanation, something else. The Bell's Theorem Experiment purports to prove that the first explanation is incorrect.

2. The Experiment works by having two measurement devices that measure the "spin" polarity. A pair of entangled particles are sent at the devices, such that each entangled particle goes to a different device.

3. The measurement devices can be spun to measure the particles from different directions. If the orientation of a particle is not perfectly aligned with the orientation of the device, there is a chance the particle is measured 'upside down' with a reverse polarity. The probability of being measured upside down gets bigger as the angle between the particle's orientation and the device's orientation gets bigger. Probability of polarity getting reversed is given by the square of the sine of half the angle between them. If there is a 120 degree angle between them, the probability of reversal is 75%.

4. Let's say we choose three different directions to be able to measure from, evenly spaced, like the corners of an equilateral triangle, one of them pointing straight up and the other two 120 degrees away in either direction. The first device is set straight up, and then we randomize which of the three directions the second device is set to.

5. The particles are themselves oriented straight up, and sent at the devices. There is a 1/3 chance the second particle is measured from straight up, registering as opposite spin. There is a 2/3 chance it is measured from one of the other two directions, which from part 3 means there is a 75% chance of getting flipped, which works out to a total of 50% chance of being measured as having the same spin as the first particle.

6. Here's where it breaks down for me. If explanation two is correct (spooky action at distance), then apparently we expect what is described in section 5. Makes sense. And that's the result the experiment obtains. But APPARENTLY if Explanation one is correct (local realism), then we would expect a higher than 50% rate, based of an analogy to the particles making a plan ahead of time about whether or not they will reverse when they find out which direction they are measured from.

7. ???? What? As far as I can tell, step 5 is consistent with both explanation one and explanation two, and thus the experiment proves nothing. With explanation two we can just say that they were opposite polarity as they approached the devices, and the probabilistic flipping was introduced in the act of measuring them at an angle. The particle was one way, you interact with it to measure it, and then it's another way. Local realism!

Please correct me so I don't go around embarrassing myself!