{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.028188865398167725, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0028188865398167725, 'mean_word_length': 5.311111111111111, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Hidden Variable Explanation of Aspect's Asymmetry Anomalies

Some little-known anomalies reported in Alain Aspect's thesis may be evidence that the accepted quantum mechanics (QM) cosine formulae do not, after all, correctly predict the results of his two-channel paired-photon EPR-type experiment reported in 1982. The anomalies (inequalities between, for example, N +? and N ?+ coincidence rates), occur completely naturally under a local realist (hidden variable) theory. The latter also predicts that the total of the four coincidence rates should vary slightly with relative detector angle. Aspect's statement that it does not may be approximately true for the particular angles he looked at. The phenomena are illustrated using the Chaotic Ball analogy of a previous paper and some simple assumptions regarding probabilities of detection. The settings of the photomultiplier voltages and discriminator thresholds, which can, in real experiments, be diierent for each of the four detectors, may be very important. It may not be necessary to do more than look carefully at some of Aspect's unpublished data to prove beyond reasonable doubt this experiment, at least, obeys Einstein, Furry and others' ideas on locality and separability. In how many other experiments does QM's denial of the existence of hidden variables preclude it from making accurate predictions of responses to changes in instrument settings?