Question

does nostoc have wormicidal properties ? If yes send its valid proof. If no send its valid proof .

Answer 1

Editor Physical Review Letters Both papers are aimed to prove the Bell's theorem, according to which there is an inequality , which is valid for local realism and is violated in quantum mechanics. However in quantum mechanics it is violated only, if entanglement of separated particles is accepted. Quantum mechanics does not require such entanglement, and there is no proof of its existence notwithstanding of many experiments, which pretend on that. Usually the proof of the entanglement follows from angular momentum conservation. Thus, for instance, decay of a singlet particle in s-state into two spin 1/2 particles requires the state of the emitted pair to be described by the entangled wave function |u|d − |d|u. However it is not necessary. The singlet particle can decay into pair of particles having individual opposite polarization, and the angular momentum conservation is satisfied only in average. It is clear that the total angular momentum for a particular event is not conserved because the linear momenta of outgoing particles define an axis in the space, therefore the state is not spherically symmetrical one. However in average, because this axis can have arbitrary direction, the angular momentum is conserved. In described experimental setups it is very easy to check whether emitted photon pairs consist of individual photons or of entangled ones. It is sufficient to shift one of the detectors, say Alice's, closer to the source, arrange both analyzers parallel to each other and to compare how many photons will be counted by Bob after measurements by Alice. Instead both teams measured a complicated expression for 4 different orientations of analyzers and show that this expression is slightly larger than zero, while in the case of local realism it should be negative. The result does not look much reliable because it depends on the way, how background is defined and subtracted. It is amusing to see the partial entanglement. According to the first paper more than 50%, and, according to the second one, more than 70% of pairs consist of individual photons. Therefore the local realism prevails in both papers. How can it be interpreted without hidden variables?