Slashdot Mirror
Teleportation Gets a Boost
saavyone writes to tell us Yahoo! News is reporting that while teleportation may not quite be a reality yet a team of Danish scientists have raised the bar on this line of research. From the article: "The experiment involved for the first time a macroscopic atomic object containing thousands of billions of atoms. They also teleported the information a distance of half a meter but believe it can be extended further. 'Teleportation between two single atoms had been done two years ago by two teams but this was done at a distance of a fraction of a millimeter,' Polzik, of the Danish National Research Foundation Center for Quantum Optics, explained. 'Our method allows teleportation to be taken over longer distances because it involves light as the carrier of entanglement,' he added."
will a physicist explain what this means? I have a reasonable understanding of physics (for somebody who hasn't studied it) and I have no idea what this means. Does it mean that we can apply energy in some way and make it go somewhere else instantaneously (the more traditional definition of teleportation)? Probably not, but then what?
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
Either that, or make the computer smarter.
now beam down my clothes!!!!!!!
Anyone have a link to this teleportation video?
Censorship is obscene. Patriotism is bigotry. Faith is a vice. Slashdot 2.0 sucks.
Here is Scientific American's article on the matter.
First Teleportation Between Light and Matter
Apparently these scientists have never watched TRON, or they'd quit why they're ahead. Or, perhaps they know the risks and have brushed up on their 80's era arcade gaming skills.
Dan East
Better known as 318230.
While I'd be fine transporting the quantum state, ect. for my new super computer laptop, you'd never get me into one of those things. I'd rather keep (the vast majority at any one time) of my atoms and subatomic particles with me.
But could you imagine if they could utilize a version of this teleportation to transfer the information to multiple places at once? Wow! That'd be a huge boon to subatomic construction technology!
Demented But Determined.
I could use it to teleport all the dust bunnies hiding behind computers to a passing Klingon ship.
I, for one, welcome our dimension-shifting overlords *ducks*
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
thousands of billions of atoms
Trillions, even?
Developers: We can use your help.
Kirk: Very interesting. You ready, Bones?
McCoy: No. I signed aboard this ship to practice medicine, not to have my atoms scattered across space by this gadget.
...sent and not the actual atoms (or constituent particles) that are sent by 'entangling' the local object's atoms with particles being sent to the remote location? In other words it is duplication as opposed to actual moving something (other than the information), right? Or am I missing something? Like 'faxing'?
Loading...
Faster than light travel? Time travel? Spaceballs?
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Remind me: In Star Trek, did the teleporters A) transmit matter or B) reconstitute a person or object from transmitted data?
...that nerds will stop at NOTHING to prove Star Trek is real. First, transparent aluminum, now this.
blah blah blah
I'll be glad if theys top calling information transportation via light entaglement "teleportation".
We all know what we expect from an article talking about teleportation, and it definitely doesn't involve crypted conversation technologies.
Reading a post like this, I suddenly feel that the slashdot moderation system is lacking. We should have a second dimension in moderation, ranging from asshole-post to really-nice-guy-post. Guess where this post goes?
How did they handle heisenberg compensation?
Isn't that, like, an oxymoron or something?
Geez, haven't you people seen what happens when you try teleporting?
I think Douglas Adams said it best:
I teleported home one night
With Ron and Sid and Meg;
Ron stole Meggie's heart away
And I got Sidney's leg.
Insisting on "correct" English is like saying that there is only one, definitive recipe for chili.
Someone had to ask. How is this technique going to maintain a person? Arent you essentially killing the person and reassembling their likeness in a remote location? How could an outsider tell the difference, the being that is transported would simply cease to exist while a copy lives the rest of their lives.
CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
1. Send DNA sequence for human/animal/etc from Star 1 to Star 2.
2. Use DNA sequence to grow said creature.
3. Install memory sequences, also sent as information.
4. Wake person up.
5. Keep original as slave in vast human slave army used to conquer the galaxy.
6. PROFIT!
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Entanglement is NOT teleportation as the general public think of it.
I think all this teleportation hype is pure b u l l p u c k y to get funding dollars!
This http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2006/10/04/195427 .htm (danish) clams 50 meters instead of .5.
40% Funny, 40% Insightful, 40% Informative, 40% Dolomite
So now I just need Seth Brundle to mix me up with the right species for up grades, right? elefant for memory, and chiks should definatly get some cat for agility :p
www.aleo.no
Sort of.
You have to transfer information from one document to another. If you look it, or measure in any way, the original - it is instantly destroyed.
This method allows you to transfer the information without measuring (i.e. destroying) it.
Or what it would entitle. What are the mechanics of the way it suppose to work. And what are the caveats, like can it be used like a replicators. Is there inherent data loss? It is a popular scientific token, thats been passed around for many years, I just wonder if it is now what we expect it to be. Like atoms that are transported are not exactly same atoms, ie electrons missing.
I understand that through quantum entanglement you can have make exact copy, by imparting one of the two photons onto other matter. When photon is imparted into a new area does described atom disappear from the original location, just like schrodinger's(not sure of the name) cat?
Here's a pretty simple way to figure out if something is or is not "good" science.
It's in the form of two examples:
1 - research is published in a recognised, peer-reviewed journal such as Nature, Science, etc. - probably well presented, may be reproducable, generally considered the correct way to present the findings.
2 - research is announced in the normal press first, for example on Yahoo!News via the Reuters news feed - "scientists" are either idiots, over-excitable, crave attention, being mis-represented, or a combination of the four. Generally considered an amazingly stupid way to present the findings.
I'll leave it to yourselves to decide which category this one fits into.
--
I have a feeling this thread is going to have millions of hundreds of comments all making the same joke about the wording of the blurb.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Where Will Riker meets his former self. I believe season 7 or 6.
In that episode, the "transport beam bounced off the atmosphere", leaving a copy behind.
OMG, I just realised why I am still here and single...
Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
Given that they are in Europe, they are presumably using british English, where "thousands of billions" is the correct term for 10^15. So in American English, that would be Quadrillions.
Trillions, in British English, would be 10^18, but if he meant that he'd probalby have said so.
That American & British English spell various words differently is completely understandable, that we use the same words for totally different numbers is utterly ridiculous.
Its about time to stop calling it teleportation because the implications are much stranger: do you really want to die and while being (hopefully!) reassembled elsewhere? If this is basically like fax or xerox how many copies of myself can I make? And of course the devilish old questions, if you reassemble something atomically does that mean there is no such thing as a soul, or did you atomize it on the other side (or is it in fact, physical)?
Quack, quack.
Presumably we are years away from this even being remotely possible, if at all...but do we really even want this kind of technology?? Chances are if it is even perfected, the public will never see it and it will only be used by the government, but imagine what could happen if it ever got into the wrong hands. Criminals could use it to steal whatever they wanted, pedophiles teleporting your kids directly out of their rooms or heaven forbid a terrorist teleporting a nuclear weapon into the middle of New York or Washington. Then we will all have to purchase all the new shield technology to protect ourselves and our possessions and goodness knows what that will do to your energy bills, which are high enough already. No thanks.....
The least they could do is make a corny teleportation pun, like, "In a sudden jump forward..." or something. Such a waste.
Dust bunnes? You think small! I have a long list of politicians and religious fundamentalist leaders I'd like to teleport onto an icy planetoid in the Oort cloud.
thousands of billions, huh? That's like, alot right?
Check out the cave on the east side of lake Hylia. Strange and wonderful things live in it.
Enterprise, what we got back didn't live long... fortunately.
Consultancy: If you're not part of the solution, there's money to be made in prolonging the problem
I just hope that Mustafa anticipates feline complications this time.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
Hehe. I'm still trying to figure out how something with thousands of billions of atoms can be described as atomic. Or where they are finding macroscopic atoms. Must have teleported it in from another dimension.
Could KPax be real?!
Suppose things were easy and we lived in a classical world. Then to teleport a particle from location A to B then all we'd have to do is send a message from A to B saying "there is particle of type X at position Y with momentum Z" and the person at the other end could go into a box, get one of the particles of type X out, and place it at a new position Y' (which is a suitable translate of Y) with momentum Z. Call this process 'C'.
The above is relatively easy. Now think how far that is from actual teleportation. It's a scheme for transporting one particle. It's conceptually trivial, but in practice it gets us nowhere if we want to beam a person from A to B.
Now the world is more complicated than this because it's quantum, not classical. This sets us back because we can't even carry out process 'C'. (Heisenberg principle 'n' all that.) What 'quantum teleportation' does is implement a new process Q that accomplishes most of what C does. We can send information from A to B and use it to construct a particle at B. Unlike process C, we mess up the original particle at A, so we can't use it to duplicate. But it does give an effective, though tricky, procedure for transporting a single particle. Suppose someone had a machine for doing C with single particles, I doubt anyone would be making press releases saying "we've invented a transporter".
And now we can say what process Q gets us. It gets us to a point where with more work we can do most of what C did. So it makes as much sense to call this 'teleportation' as process C. Ie. it isn't teleportation at all.
Quantum teleportation is interesting for a different reason. Not because it makes teleportation possible, but because is demolishes one argument against teleportation. In particular, it demolishes the argument Laurence Krauss uses against teleportation in The Physics of Star Trek. But honestly, this objection is more of a philosophical issue than a practical one. (Ironically, quantum teleportation means that Star Trek wouldn't need 'Heisenberg compensators' :-)
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
MY head is on the body of a fly and why am I standing in sh#t?
Teleporting would severely hamper governments' abilities to control the movement of people and other material objects. In this age of paranoid fear of terrorists, and other control oriented behaviour (tax, excise, War On Drugs, War On Illegal Aliens,..., one wonders whether governments will shut down any programs before they get anywhere near making practical teleporting work.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
This has nothing to do with "actual" teleportation.
All it is transferring the quantum state of one atom (spin etc) to that of another. So you aren't moving particles, you aren't transferring information about the relative arrangement of particles, or even what types of particles you are made of. If there were already two exact physical copies of your body you *might* be able to use an advanced version of this to sync up the quantum state of each corresponding atom, but even that is unlikely.
Please make sure that this information doesn't make it back to Microsoft; otherwise, they will immediately institute a poorly-implemented QRM (Quantum Rights Management) to restrict teleporation to only approved Partner(TM) destinations using "Quantum Genuine Advantage", and the infamous "Blue Screen of Death" will take on a much more literal meaning!
the idea that you can tear something apart at the molecular level and send it somewhere in a "beam" is absurd.
You mean as "absurd" as, say, instantaneous (no, not merely speed of light, but actually instantaneous) action at a distance as predicted by Bell's Theorem and confirmed for entangled pairs of particles?
Yep, it's quite absurd. Yet it's what reality has decided she feels like doing.
So you'd better go easy on declarations of absurdity. They can turn around and bite you.
And that's especially true for matter and energy and information, which are increasingly starting to look like different aspects of the same thing.
You could use this technology to do rapid backups of you pron collection -- gigs of jpgs at the speed of light!
If the information can be stored, you could do a backup of you. Better yet, a Time Machine 'a la' Mac's Leopard for pretty interface that guarantees Ooohhs and Ahhhss while you go back to a previous state of you. You'll will be able to browse back until you see your liver as it was before THAT night.
Boiled down to one sentence: Cut and Paste. There.
You're new here, aren't you?
That helped me a little bit.
You mad
Your post reminded me of similar considerations in nanotechnology.
:-)
If you take an "original" something and make an atom-by-atom perfect "copy" through molecular manufacturing, then the concepts of "old" and "new" lose their common meaning. Replicate a thousand-year old Song dynasty vase and your "new" atomically identical "copy" is also a thousand years old, to the second.
The art merchants are going to have a fit, just like the RIAA have with digital copies of music. And now it seems that teleportation by entanglement may join nanotech in the replication fun.
This has been argued before... Teleporters are big nasty death machines.
When you step in, you are recreated elsewhere and your original body is destroyed.
Worse yet, since your copy is exactly the same as you to an outside observer, a society could theoretically use teleporters for centuries and not realize that every time someone steps in, they perceive their own death.
And there's no way to prove this is or isn't the case.
I will never step in a teleporter. You shouldn't either.
-Z
I'm pretty sure this is just a description of the equipment, not the actual experiment. It gets a little technical for me near the end, can anyone explain the details?
m-
You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
Read Way Station by Clifford D. Simak. It's a wonrderful tale, and it uses this exact same tech. And the story is some 50 years old.
+Raider of the lost BBS
Your questions are premised on the untrue assumption that you are your body. You aren't your body, nor any result of that body's physical operation (ie the mind). A little introspection is sufficient to convince yourself of the truth of that. Otherwise, Doug Hofstadter is an excellent place to start reading...
Please describe, in a repeatable, objectively testable way, how to tell the difference between living and dead matter at the quantum level. For that matter please describe how to tell the difference between living and dead matter over very short periods of time. There's a lot about "life" that we don't understand scientifically yet.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
They use light in Stargate to teleport pepole, hardware, etc. Hey! Wait a min....
As usual, the Star Trek writers failed to consider any implications of this astonishing possibility.
Of course they did. The episode was filled with psychological and sociological implications.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
From a dictionary:
You're talking about definition 1, according to which a perfect copy is the same as the original, because no analysis or measurement could distinguish them.
By definition two, the two objects, are two objects, not one, and thus they are not the same: there has been both an addition and a discontinuance of the (destroyed) source object. That is, the copy is not the selfsame.
The philosophical question, to be especially pedantic, is, is selfsameness important? (Especially if we're talking about humans.)
The US free market: two halves of a government-granted duopoly are free to set the market price.
Really-nice-guy-post?
Soon I'll be able to ditch my DSL. I bet I could torrent so fast with a teleporter instead some copper wire.
You are not understanding the principle of exchange. If you have two quantum systems in *exactly* the same quantum state, then they are not distinguishable, even in principle. There is no difference between "quantum state" and "instance". Either system can be considered a "teleported" copy of the other.
You and your friend are not in the same quantum state no matter how similar your behavior.
this signature has been removed due to a DMCA takedown notice
So they finally figured out how the Heisenberg compensator works?
"The experiment involved for the first time a macroscopic atomic object containing thousands of billions of atoms."
I'm still waiting for a day when they can publish science news without suggesting stuff that is greater than what has been done. Reading this you would think they teleported some macroscopic solid containing a complex structure of atoms, or so they'd like you to think.
For once it would be nice to read the full story the first time so you didn't have to find the real one that says they have pretty much done the same as normal but with a twist so they can claim something new. In terms of practical implications it has absolutely no value in making us closer to teleporting macroscopic objects (unless clouds of gas or BECs can be called objects). When they can teleport a spoon or a tennis ball or a rabbit then they can mention 'macroscopic teleportation'. Till then they should stick to throwing around 'quantum computing' as their catch phrase. Though in its usability quantum computing is only a small amount ahead of string theory and maybe behind fusion.
Slashdot is powered by your submission.
If i had any mod points I'd give you some. :)
Damn he set that up well for you.
I had to look up esoteric too; I sometimes get the feeling that scientists read the thesaurus more than the journals in America.
Slashdot is powered by your submission.
Very afraid..
:)
Cuz the first time i get ahold of one of these devices... i'm transporting all the morons into the sun.
how do you think the star trek universe got so nice anyways...
captcha: slashed
are "thousands of billions of atoms" visible to the naked eye? pea-sized? dust-sized? electron-microscope-viewable-only? what?
What about the relative positions of the particles at the other end? Even if the copy's particles are coerced into taking on the same spins as the original object's particles, we still need the copy's particles to be arranged in the same manner as those of the original object. Otherwise, transporting a human would give you a pile of mush (like in Star Trek: The Motion Picture).
The bits on the bus go on and off... on and off... on and off...
The first living thing to go through the device was a small white rat. I still have him, in fact. As you can see, the damage was not so great as they say.
What, did they put Type-R stickers and an outrageous rear wing on the machine or something?
I didn't see in the article -- did they teleport the "macroscopic atomic object containing thousands of billions of atoms" (read -- the hostesses undergarments) 1/2 meter to the left or right?
Unless "very short periods of time" is too technobabbly for you?
Or perhaps I am being too complicated...how about you just describe to me the best way to test if ANY piece of matter is living or dead.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
I'd tend to agree with you, but I'm a neurophysiology fan. One big complicated machine right? But that doesn't work for everyone. The question still stands. Its like the tree falling in the woods only much more...interesting.
Quack, quack.
Now, that that, it only applies if you're moving a file around in the same file system. If you move a file between one disk/partition/filesystem and another, it is a process of
copy to temporary
rename target
delete original
I think a lot of Brits have given up on the old definition of billion = 10^12, and they now settle for 10^9 to conform with American usage. Except the pedants.
"Beam me half a meter sideways, Scotty"
My feeling on this is that we'll find that human teleportation, molecular decimation, breakdown and reformation is inherantly purging; it'll make a man a king!
But a question remains: If we manage somehow to teleport all the atoms/quarks/whatever of something, will it still be alive ?
Paging Scott Bakula...
Just wondering if it is possible to move teleportate particles, without altering their state Then surely location itself is something a particle isn't aware of. This would mean someting in formation theory is masses dont contain location information. So what does that say about locatoins in space or speed of particles if those particles are not aware of it...? (and if the particles are not aware of it what then keeps things in place) Perhaps i gues there is no limit of this to happen and we have been lucky that while you where reading this you didn't end up on the moon. ohno a phylosophical/physics - brainwave
I know you're out there. I can feel you now. I know that you're afraid. You're afraid of us. You're afraid of change.
[N]erds will stop at NOTHING to prove Star Trek is real.
While I'll agree it's daft, are you willing to conceed that it constitues a less detrimental and more sustainable impetus for technological advancement than wars between nation-states?
Yet another way in which Star Trek contributes to the improvement of our society.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
So in order to get this to work on say, a human, you'd need the exact number and type of atoms in the human body already group together somewhere in the exact configuration of the orginal human, and then this process would copy state from one human to the other, essentialy destroying the state of the first group of atoms.
Let's test a cat.
Here will be an old abusing of God's patience and the king's English.
My point is that right now there is clearly more to "life" than can be described by our understanding of the raw physics of the materials involved. I don't think it's wrong to call that mysterious--science can be used to investigate mysteries. I do agree with you that a mystical answer is not useful or valuable. But pointing out a gap in our understanding will necessarily involve imprecise language. That doesn't make it a mystical explanation though IMO.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
The point of the GGP is that the quantum mechanical state of the physical components of life at any single point in time might not be sufficient to define living vs. dead. I believe this is an open question. So assuming that one could teleport the (admittedly enormous) collection of states in a living being, would the matter "receiving" the information then live, or remain inert? As I understand the current state of our knowledge this is a) unanswerable short of actually trying it and b) academic anyway as the impracticalities abound. :-)
I'm actually in agreement with you and I've read (and enjoyed) Dawkins' books. Basically I was just offended at the arrogance on display by the GP. I'm all for debunking mysticism but let's not dismiss questions that remain open to scientific investigation. There are certainly scientific theories now that we know are well-supported, but remain counter-intuitive and mysterious.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Speaking of teleportation, one of the best SF novels about someone who could teleport is "Jumper" by Stephen Gould. It's presently out of print, but won't be much longer once the movie comes out next year. Try to read it before the movie will probably ruin it. Review here: http://www.lostbooks.org/guestreviews/2001-07-06-2 .html
Up your asshole?
Actually, the current method for entangling the atoms of the matter does destroy it.
Loading...
It strikes me how, every time quantum teleportation comes up, people thinks "Scottie, beam me up". As explained below, that isn't what "quantum teleportation" is about. The big deal in this article is something else: Quantum information has now been reliably transferred light to atoms. This is really neat if you want to store _and_ transport quantum data - light is really good for transmitting quantumdata, it could in not-so-farfetched theory be done using the existing opticfiber-networks. However, it moves with the speed of light and thus, sucks for storing data once you have it. What Polzik and the team he worked with made, is the
solution to this problem: take the quantum information in the light, and store it in a nice, not-moving, stable atom. Supposidly, you can do the opposite as well, and hence it's a step forward for quantum memory (after all, the process I describe is exactly what "conventional" ram does, if you interchange ligthelectric current, quantum classical and atom "electronic system holding one bit of information in your computers memory")
...spreading a man's cesium atoms all over the universe.
the atoms teleport you!
> It isn't so neat for amplitude and phase. Firstly, they are not conjugate variables
> (like position and momentum), so measurement of one does not imply the other is disturbed.
How do you measure phase without disturbing amplitude? Amplitude would be an energy measurement while phase would be a time-domain measurement. Time and energy are conjugate variables. I admit that the limitation on measurement of phase and amplitude is not as clear to me, but it seems like another facet of the same.
> Unfortunately this does not correspond to duplicating the photon. Consider the
> photoelectric effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect This is
> a good rugged experimental demonstration that light interacts in the discret
> lumps we call photons;
I understand you to be making an argument here that photons can not be copied by the splitter because they are discrete entities and each goes either one way or the other. Right?
> If you're able to resolve the double slit experiment and the photoelectric
> effect without invoking superpositions, I'd be very interested to hear.
I'm glad you asked. The photoelectric effect demonstrates that the light absorption interaction is quantized, and I certainly agree with that. The point to be made here is that this quantization does not have to be explained by quantizing the photon; it can be equally well explained by quantizing the absorption. The result is equivalent, since both cases result in a quantum of light being absorbed. The reality is not equivalent, since aside from the photoelectric effect I have not seen any experiment giving evidence that photons are such particles.
My alternative explanation is that light is continuous in energy and no such thing as a "photon" exists. Atomic absorption is quantized because of discrete energy levels available to the electron. Atomic energy levels are discrete because the electron forms a standing wave around the nucleus and those waves are only stable at specific integer frequencies.
The process of absorption occurs as follows. The electron orbit by itself (orbital size of ~0.1nm) is too small a target to absorb a light wavelength (400-700nm), for the same reason that you need a long antenna to listen to the radio. A frequency of 100MHz has wavelength of 3m and can not be heard if your antenna is only a millimeter in size, which is the same proportion as between light and electrons. The electron orbit, being an oscillating wave, generates and electromagnetic near-field (which does not radiate, but rather acts like energy storage) which couples to the incoming light wave and starts "sucking" energy out of it if the light wave can resonate with the near field. See this newsgroup thread and this article with some specific calculations.
When the light frequency is resonant with the electron frequency the nearfield "antenna" gains energy, increases in amplitude, and proceeds to suck in even more energy as the effective receiver size increases. During this process the electron is in an unstable orbit, where the standing wave doesn't exactly "line up" and so keeps going up to and falling back from it, resulting in an equilibrium of energy transfer between the nearfield and the electron. You might thin
I forgot to comment on Bell's theorem and hidden variables, so here it is:
> As for the system being in some state, but the only uncertainty being our
> knowledge of it: this is the so called `hidden-variable' class of theories.
No it isn't. Hidden variable theories assert that QM needs some parameter in its equations in order to dispel uncertainty in the results. I am asserting that QM is misinterpreting the measurements it already makes, so the "new" variables I am proposing are the ones it already has, but doesn't use properly. Hidden variable theories also assert that QM is valid but incomplete, whereas I am asserting that QM is not valid (although it may give correct results if properly used, just as astrology can often give proper description of a man's personality), or, in other words, does not give the correct picture of reality. Because hidden variable theories retain the salient points of QM, they can potentially be proven to be equivalent to QM. The Aspect experiment seems to have settled the point, although there is much controversy on the subject still ongoing.
> Einstein favoured this, I believe, but he wasn't around to see the Bell inequalities proposed and measured.
Now let's talk about Bell's inequalities. The very first thing one ought to notice about them is that they concern discrete entities. Here again we come against the quantization of photons, which I have discussed in the other post. A theory where light is not quantized has no relevance to Bell's inequalities and vice versa. In fact, I hold Aspect experiments as a definitive proof that light is a wave, not a particle. If you look at Aspect's setup, you'll see that it counts coincidences of polarization, rather than individual photons themselves. If you assume that photons are particles and that each one must choose a specific path, then Bell's inequalities hold, and the experiment would have validated them. Instead, the results indicate that QM's predictions are valid. QM treats the whole system as a single wavefunction of superimposed states. This is equivalent to viewing all the light coming through it as one wave. Because a wave does not choose, but rather takes all the paths, coincidence counts will be higher than predicted by the particle approach.
There is an old example of a professor and his socks given for illustration of Bell's inequalities. If a professor's sock does not survive by washing technique A, then it can not be tested with the more rigorous washing technique B. The sock is assumed to either survive or be destroyed, just as a photon is assumed to either pass through a polarization filter or not. But because photon is a wave, it always passes through the filter, just not necessarily at the energy level of "photon". With the socks, it would be like sowing several half-destroyed socks together for test B. Bell's inequalities result from the particle approach. QM uses a wave approach but lies to itself about it. The Aspect experiments clearly demonstrate that photons are waves because the recombined half-photons become whole socks and make it to the second washing.
Observe also, how treating photons as continuous waves explains the delayed path choice weirdness, where a photon suddenly "knows" that one path is unavailable before you yourself make the choice to make it so. Look at it from the perspective of quantized absorption and everything becomes clear.
More about QM's treatment. In QM the photons are treated as a probability wave, which superimpose on the detector and collapse into more measurements than there ought to be. If you look at light as continuous, what does a particular value of its probability wave signify? If you have a path where a photon is with a probability of 0.3 and a path where a photon is with a probability of 0.7, what is the probability of a photon in the combined path? 0.3 + 0.7 = 1.0. This strongly suggests that the probability values are simply intensity values for the