In spite of the fact that statistical predictions of quantum theory (QT) can only be tested if large amount of data is available a claim has been made that QT provides the most complete description of an individual physical system. Einstein’s opposition to this claim and the paradox he presented in the article written together with Podolsky and Rosen in 1935 inspired generations of physicists in their quest for better understanding of QT. Seventy years after EPR article it is clear that without deep understanding of the character and limitations of QT one may not hope to find a meaningful unified theory of all physical interactions, manipulate qubits or construct a quantum computer.. In this paper we present shortly the EPR paper, the discussion, which followed it and Bell inequalities (BI). To avoid various paradoxes we advocate purely statistical contextual interpretation (PSC) of QT. According to PSC a state vector is not an attribute of a single electron, photon, trapped ion or quantum dot. A value of an observable assigned to a physical system has only a meaning in a context of a particular physical experiment PSC does not provide any mental space‐time picture of sub phenomena. The EPR paradox is avoided because the reduction of the state vector in the measurement process is a passage from a description of the whole ensemble of the experimental results to a particular sub‐ensemble of these results. We show that the violation of BI is neither a proof of the completeness of QT nor of its non‐locality. Therefore we rephrase the EPR question and ask whether QT is “predictably “complete or in other words does it provide the complete description of experimental data. To test the “predictable completeness” it is not necessary to perform additional experiments it is sufficient to analyze more in detail the existing experimental data by using various non‐parametric purity tests and other specific statistical tools invented to study the fine structure the time‐series.
In spite of the fact that statistical predictions of quantum theory (QT) can only be tested if large amount of data is available a claim has been made that QT provides the most complete description of an individual physical system. Einstein’s opposition to this claim and the paradox he presented in the article written together with Podolsky and Rosen in 1935 inspired generations of physicists in their quest for better understanding of QT. Seventy years after EPR article it is clear that without deep understanding of the character and limitations of QT one may not hope to find a meaningful unified theory of all physical interactions, manipulate qubits or construct a quantum computer.. In this paper we present shortly the EPR paper, the discussion, which followed it and Bell inequalities (BI). To avoid various paradoxes we advocate purely statistical contextual interpretation (PSC) of QT. According to PSC a state vector is not an attribute of a single electron, photon, trapped ion or quantum dot. A value of an observable assigned to a physical system has only a meaning in a context of a particular physical experiment PSC does not provide any mental space‐time picture of sub phenomena. The EPR paradox is avoided because the reduction of the state vector in the measurement process is a passage from a description of the whole ensemble of the experimental results to a particular sub‐ensemble of these results. We show that the violation of BI is neither a proof of the completeness of QT nor of its non‐locality. Therefore we rephrase the EPR question and ask whether QT is “predictably “complete or in other words does it provide the complete description of experimental data. To test the “predictable completeness” it is not necessary to perform additional experiments it is sufficient to analyze more in detail the existing experimental data by using various non‐parametric purity tests and other specific statistical tools invented to study the fine structure the time‐series.
The quantum theory (QT) and new stochastic approaches have no deterministic prediction for a single measurement or for a single time‐series of events observed for a trapped ion, electron or any other individual physical system. The predictions of QT being of probabilistic character apply to the statistical distribution of the results obtained in various experiments. The Copenhagen interpretation (CI) of QT acknowledged the abstract and statistical character of the predictions of QT but at the same time claimed that a state vector Ψ provided complete description of each individual physical system. The assigning the state vector to an individual physical system together with a postulate of its instantaneous reduction in the measurements was shown by Einstein Podolski and Rosen to lead to so called EPR paradox for the experiments with the entangled pairs of the particles. EPR concluded that a state vector could not provide a complete description of the individual systems and the question arose whether the probabilistic predictions of QT could be derived from some more fundamental spatio‐temporal deterministic description of the invisible sub‐phenomena by introduction of supplementary parameters. The experimental violation of the Bell inequalities in the spin polarization correlation experiments (SPCE) which were the implementations of Bohm and EPR gedanken experiments eliminated so called local and realistic models of the sub‐phenomena. Quite often the violation of these inequalities has been incorrectly interpreted as a proof of the completeness of QT or as the violation of the locality and causality in the micro‐world. The local and realistic models overlooked the fact that an experimental outcome is only the information about a particular system‐system or system‐instrument interaction. Namely the quantum phenomena are described in terms of the probabilities. It is well known that the probability distribution is not an attribute of a dice but it is a characteristic of a whole random experiment: “rolling a dice”. In this paper we will underline: that the quantum probabilities do not describe the lack of knowledge about the physical systems but the lack of knowledge about the experiments and therefore they are “contextual” and that the statistical long range correlations between two random variables X and Y are not a proof of any causal relation between these variables. Moreover any probabilistic model used to described a random experiment is consistent only with a specific protocol telling how the random experiment has to be performed. The probabilistic model used to prove Bell inequalities implied a protocol completely inappropriate and impossible to implement for SPCE . We conclude that the meaningful question about the predictable completeness of QT is still open and it should be answered by a careful and unconventional analysis of the experimental data. The correct understanding of statistical and contextual character of QT is essential for the research in the domain of quantum information and quantum computing.
Quantum theory (QT) provides statistical predictions for various physical phenomena. To verify these predictions a considerable amount of data has been accumulated in the 'measurements' performed on the ensembles of identically prepared physical systems or in the repeated 'measurements' on some trapped 'individual physical systems'. The outcomes of these measurements are, in general, some numerical time series registered by some macroscopic instruments. The various empirical probability distributions extracted from these time series were shown to be consistent with the probabilistic predictions of QT. More than 70 years ago the claim was made that QT provided the most complete description of 'individual' physical systems and outcomes of the measurements performed on 'individual' physical systems were obtained in an intrinsically random way. Spin polarization correlation experiments (SPCEs), performed to test the validity of Bell inequalities, clearly demonstrated the existence of strong long-range correlations and confirmed that the beams hitting far away detectors somehow preserve the memory of their common source which would be destroyed if the individual counts of far away detectors were purely random. Since the probabilities describe the random experiments and are not the attributes of the 'individual' physical systems, the claim that QT provides a complete description of 'individual' physical systems seems not only unjustified but also misleading and counter productive. In this paper, we point out that we even do not know whether QT is predictably complete because it has not been tested carefully enough. Namely, it was not proven that the time series of existing experimental data did not contain some stochastic fine structures that could have been averaged out by describing them in terms of the empirical probability distributions. In this paper, we advocate various statistical tests that could be used to search for such fine structures in the data and to answer the title question of this paper. In our opinion a proper understanding of the statistical character of QT and of its limitations is crucial in the domains such as quantum optics and quantum information.
This year we celebrate 100 years of quantum mechanics (QM). Incorrect interpretations of QM and incorrect mental models of the invisible details of quantum phenomena lead to paradoxes. To explain these, we advocate the statistical contextual interpretation (SCI) of quantum mechanics. State vectors (wave functions) and various operators are purely mathematical entities that permit quantitative probabilistic predictions. “State vector” describes an ensemble of identically prepared physical systems, and a specific “operator” represents a class of equivalent measurements of a physical observable. A collapse of wavefunction is not a mysterious and instantaneous physical process; a collapsed quantum state describes a new ensemble of physical systems prepared in a particular way. A value of a physical observable, such as a spin projection, associated with a pure quantum ensemble is a characteristic of this ensemble created by its interaction with measuring instruments. Probabilities are objective properties of random experiments in which empirical frequencies stabilize. Following Einstein, SCI rejects the claim that QM provides a complete description of individual physical systems, but it remains agnostic about whether a more detailed subquantum description can be found or is necessary. In conformity with Bohr contextuality, SCI rejects Bell-local and Bell-causal hidden variable models. Nevertheless, by incorporating into a probabilistic model contextual hidden variable measuring instruments, long distance quantum correlations studied in Bell tests can be explained without evoking quantum nonlocality or retro-causality. SCI allows the explanation of several quantum phenomena without evoking quantum magic. SCI does not claim to provide a complete description of quantum phenomena; in fact, it is unknown whether quantum probabilities even provide a complete description of existing experimental data. Time series of experimental data may contain much more information than is obtained using empirical frequencies and histograms. Therefore, predictable completeness of QM must be tested and not taken for granted.
Eighty years ago Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen demonstrated that instantaneous reduction of wave function, believed to describe completely a pair of entangled physical systems, led to EPR paradox. The paradox disappears in statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics (QM) according to which a wave function describes only an ensemble of identically prepared physical systems. QM predicts strong correlations between outcomes of measurements performed on different members of EPR pairs in far-away locations. Searching for an intuitive explanation of these correlations John Bell analysed so called local realistic hidden variable models and proved that correlations consistent with these models satisfy Bell inequalities which are violated by some predictions of QM and by experimental data. Several different local models were constructed and inequalities proven. Some eminent physicists concluded that Nature is definitely nonlocal and that it is acting according to a law of nonlocal randomness. According to these law perfectly random, but strongly correlated events, can be produced at the same time in far away locations and a local and causal explanation of their occurrence cannot be given. We strongly disagree with this conclusion and we prove the contrary by analysing in detail some influential finite sample proofs of Bell and CHSH inequalities and so called Quantum Randi Challenges. We also show how one can win so called Bell's game without violating locality of Nature. Nonlocal randomness is inconsistent with local quantum field theory, with standard model in elementary particle physics and with causal laws and adaptive dynamics prevailing in the surrounding us world. The experimental violation of Bell-type inequalities does not prove the nonlocality of Nature but it only confirms a contextual character of quantum observables and gives a strong argument against counterfactual definiteness and against a point of view according to which experimental outcomes are produced in irreducible random way.
In 1935, Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) argued that (then new) quantum mechanics was incomplete. At the heart of EPR’s paradox was the strange non-local nature of an entangled state which allowed EPR to simultaneously assign local values for position and momentum of a particle. In 1964, John Bell proposed an inequality (Bell’s inequality) that must be satisfied by any local realistic theory. The experimental confirmation of quantum physics, i.e., the experimental test of Bell’s inequality, required a pair of particles in an entangled state. The experiments first performed in the early 1970s, followed by a series of experiments until now, have confirmed the violation of Bell’s inequality, strongly implying that local realistic descriptions of nature are not consistent with experimental observations. The early simplistic view of entanglement has now been significantly expanded to include mixed states and multiple particles. Moreover, theoretical and experimental studies on the nature of entanglement have led to quantum information science where entanglement is an essential resource. In this article, we briefly review the early experiments on Bell’s inequality and experimental attempts to close “loopholes” as well as some key experiments on quantum information.
Introduction The paradox of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen was advanced as an argument that quantum mechanics could not be a complete theory but should be supplemented by additional variables. These additional variables were to restore to the theory causality and locality. In this note that idea will be formulated mathematically and shown to be incompatible with the statistical predictions of quantum mechanics. It is the requirement of locality, or more precisely that the result of a measurement on one system be unaffected by operations on a distant system with which it has interacted in the past, that creates the essential difficulty. There have been attempts to show that even without such a separability or locality requirement no ‘hidden variable’ interpretation of quantum mechanics is possible. These attempts have been examined elsewhere and found wanting. Moreover, a hidden variable interpretation of elementary quantum theory has been explicitly constructed. That particular interpretation has indeed a grossly non-local structure. This is characteristic, according to the result to be proved here, of any such theory which reproduces exactly the quantum mechanical predictions. Formulation With the example advocated by Bohm and Aharonov, the EPR argument is the following. Consider a pair of spin one-half particles formed somehow in the singlet spin state and moving freely in opposite directions. Measurements can be made, say by Stern–Gerlach magnets, on selected components of the spins σ 1 and σ 2 .