Bell's theorem is a statement by which averages obtained from specific types of statistical distributions must conform to a family of inequalities. These models, in accordance with the EPR argument, provide for the simultaneous existence of quantum mechanically incompatible quantities. We first recall several contradictions arising between the assumption of a joint distribution for incompatible observables and the probability structure of quantum-mechanics, and conclude that Bell's theorem is not expected to be relevant to quantum phenomena described by non-commuting observables, irrespective of the issue of locality. Then, we try to disentangle the locality issue from the existence of joint distributions by introducing two models accounting for the EPR correlations but denying the existence of joint distributions. We will see that these models do not need to resort explicitly to non-locality: the first model relies on conservation laws for ensembles, and the second model on an equivalence class by which different configurations lead to the same physical predictions.
Bell's theorem is a statement by which averages obtained from specific types of statistical distributions must conform to a family of inequalities. These models, in accordance with the EPR argument, provide for the simultaneous existence of quantum mechanically incompatible quantities. We first recall several contradictions arising between the assumption of a joint distribution for incompatible observables and the probability structure of quantum-mechanics, and conclude that Bell's theorem is not expected to be relevant to quantum phenomena described by non-commuting observables, irrespective of the issue of locality. Then, we try to disentangle the locality issue from the existence of joint distributions by introducing two models accounting for the EPR correlations but denying the existence of joint distributions. We will see that these models do not need to resort explicitly to non-locality: the first model relies on conservation laws for ensembles, and the second model on an equivalence class by which different configurations lead to the same physical predictions.
Abstract. Bell’s theorem is a statement by which averages obtained from specific types of statistical distributions must conform to a family of inequalities. These models, in accordance with the EPR argument, provide for the simultaneous existence of quantum mechanically incompatible quantities. We first recall several contradictions arising between the assumption of a joint distribution for incompatible observables and the probability structure of quantum-mechanics, and conclude that Bell’s theorem is not expected to be relevant to quantum phenomena described by non-commuting observables, irrespective of the issue of locality. Then, we try to disentangle the locality issue from the existence of joint distributions by introducing two models accounting for the EPR correlations but denying the existence of joint distributions. We will see that these models do not need to resort explicitly to non-locality: the first model relies on conservation laws for ensembles, and the second model on an equivalence class by which different configurations lead to the same physical predictions. Keywords: Quantum mechanics, Non-locality, Bell inequalities
Bell's theorem is a statement by which averages obtained from specific types of statistical distributions must conform to a family of inequalities. These models, in accordance with the EPR argument, provide for the simultaneous existence of quantum mechanically incompatible quantities. We first recall several contradictions arising between the assumption of a joint distribution for incompatible observables and the probability structure of quantum-mechanics, and conclude that Bell's theorem is not expected to be relevant to quantum phenomena described by non-commuting observables, irrespective of the issue of locality. Then, we try to disentangle the locality issue from the existence of joint distributions by introducing two models accounting for the EPR correlations but denying the existence of joint distributions. We will see that these models do not need to resort explicitly to non-locality: the first model relies on conservation laws for ensembles, and the second model on an equivalence class by which different configurations lead to the same physical predictions.
For a system composed of two particles, Bell's theorem asserts that averages of physical quantities determined from local variables must conform to a family of inequalities. In this work we show that a classical model containing a local probabilistic interaction in the measurement process can lead to a violation of the Bell inequalities. We first introduce two-particle phase-space distributions in classical mechanics constructed to be the analogs of quantum-mechanical angular momentum eigenstates. These distributions are then employed in four schemes characterized by different types of detectors measuring the angular momenta. When the model includes an interaction between the detector and the measured particle leading to ensemble dependencies, the relevant Bell inequalities are violated if the total angular momentum is required to be conserved. The violation is explained by identifying assumptions made in the derivation of Bell's theorem that are not fulfilled by the model, in particular noncommutativity of single-particle measurements. We discuss to what extent a violation of these assumptions is a faithful marker of nonlocality.
We analyze a possible loophole to the conclusion of the Bell-KS theorem that quantum mechanics is not compatible with any realistic and noncontextual or local theory. We emphasize that the models discarded by Bell-KS-like arguments possess a property not shared by quantum mechanics, i.e. the capability to make non-trivial statements about the joint statistics of quantum incompatible observables. By ruling out this possibility, apparently nothing seems to prevent from a realistic, noncontextual or local view of quantum mechanics.
One of the Bell's assumptions in the original derivation of his inequalities was the hypothesis of locality, i.e., of the absence of the influence of two remote measuring instruments on one another. That is why violations of these inequalities observed in experiments are often interpreted as a manifestation of the nonlocal nature of quantum mechanics, or a refutation of local realism. In this paper, Bell's inequality is derived in its traditional form, without resorting to the hypothesis of locality, the only assumption being that the probability distributions are nonnegative. These probability distributions are calculated, for a specific optical experiment, in the framework of quantum theory and it is shown that they can take on negative values. This can therefore be regarded as a rigorous proof that the hypothesis of locality is not relevant to violations of Bell's inequalities. The physical meaning of the obtained results is examined.
Introduction Fifty years after the publication of Bell's theorem, there remains some controversy regarding what the theorem is telling us about quantum mechanics, and what the experimental violations of Bell inequalities are telling us about the world. This chapter represents my best attempt to be clear about what I think the lessons are. In brief: There is some sort of nonlocality inherent in any quantum theory, and, moreover, in any theory that reproduces, even approximately, the quantum probabilities for the outcomes of experiments. But not all forms of nonlocality are the same; there is a distinction to be made between action at a distance and other forms of nonlocality, and I will argue that the nonlocality needed to violate the Bell inequalities need not involve action at a distance. Furthermore, the distinction between forms of nonlocality makes a difference when it comes to compatibility with relativistic causal structure. The Bell locality condition is a condition which, if satisfied, renders possible a completely local account of the correlations between outcomes of spatially separated experiments. Bell's theorem tells us that the probabilities that we compute from quantum mechanics do not admit of such an account. Modulo auxiliary assumptions that, in my opinion, should be noncontroversial, this yields the conclusion that there must be something nonlocal about any theory that yields the quantum mechanical probabilities or anything close to them. One way to violate the Bell locality condition – and this is the way that any deterministic theory must do it – is via straightforward action at a distance. However, we should also consider the possibility of a stochastic theorywith probabilistic laws that involve irreducible correlations. The sort of nonlocality inherent in such a theory involves relations between events that are significantly different from causal relations as usually conceived. Perhaps surprisingly, such a theory, unlike its deterministic cousins, need not invoke a distinguished relation of distant simultaneity. This makes a difference for the situation of the two sorts of theories vis-a-vis relativity. Though a deterministic theory can achieve the appearance of being relativistic, at the level of observable phenomena, it can do so only by introducing a preferred foliation and with it a causal structure at odds with relativistic causal structures. Things are otherwise with dynamical collapse theories.