Bell's theorem, and its experimental tests, has shown that the two premises for Bell's inequality—locality and objective reality—cannot both hold in nature, as Bell's inequality is broken. A simple test is proposed, which for the first time may decide which alternative nature actually prefers on the fundamental, quantum level. If each microscopic event is truly random (e.g., as assumed in orthodox quantum mechanics) objective reality is not valid whereas if each event is described by an unknown but deterministic mechanism (“hidden variables”) locality is not valid. This may be analyzed and decided by the well-known reconstruction method of Ruelle and Takens; in the former case no structure should be discerned, in the latter a reconstructed structure should be visible. This could in principle be tested by comparing individual “hits” in a double-slit experiment, but in practice a single fluorescent atom, and its (seemingly random) temporal switching between active/inactive states would possibly be better/more practical, easier to set up, observe, and analyze. However, only imagination limits the list of possible experimental setups.
Bell's theorem, and its experimental tests, has shown that the two premises for Bell's inequality—locality and objective reality—cannot both hold in nature, as Bell's inequality is broken. A simple test is proposed, which for the first time may decide which alternative nature actually prefers on the fundamental, quantum level. If each microscopic event is truly random (e.g., as assumed in orthodox quantum mechanics) objective reality is not valid whereas if each event is described by an unknown but deterministic mechanism (“hidden variables”) locality is not valid. This may be analyzed and decided by the well-known reconstruction method of Ruelle and Takens; in the former case no structure should be discerned, in the latter a reconstructed structure should be visible. This could in principle be tested by comparing individual “hits” in a double-slit experiment, but in practice a single fluorescent atom, and its (seemingly random) temporal switching between active/inactive states would possibly be better/more practical, easier to set up, observe, and analyze. However, only imagination limits the list of possible experimental setups.
Bell's inequalities(1964) provides a quantitative criterion to test the local hidden variable theory(LHVT) versus quantum mechanics(QM).For the first time,it leads to the possibility to experimentally distinguish LHVT and QM.So far,there have been tens of experiments ever since the first experiment by Clauser et al(1972).An overwhelming majority of these experiments are in good agreement with the predictions of QM yet violate those of LHVT.Some loopholes in these experiments are discussed in Section I,followed by a respective summary to 12 experiments between 1972 to 1982 and 31 experiments from 1985 and on in Sections II and III.It is finally pointed out that so far there is not a single experiment to close both the locality loophole and the detection loophole at the same time,but the experimental outcomes are irreversible.Accordingly,theoretical physicists must admit that the present physics foundation is broken,i.e.quantum mechanics is contradiction with special relativity.
J.S. Bell's remarkable 1964 theorem showed that any theory sharing the empirical predictions of orthodox quantum mechanics would have to exhibit a surprising – and, from the point of view of relativity theory, very troubling – kind of nonlocality. Unfortunately, even still on this 50th anniversary, many commentators and textbook authors continue to misrepresent Bell's theorem. In particular, one continues to hear the claim that Bell's result leaves open the option of concluding either nonlocality or the failure of some unorthodox “hidden variable” (or “determinism” or “realism”) premise. This mistaken claim is often based on a failure to appreciate the role of the earlier 1935 argument of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen in Bell's reasoning. After briefly reviewing this situation, I turn to two alternative versions of quantum theory – the “many worlds” theory of Everett and the quantum Bayesian interpretation of Fuchs, Schack, Caves, and Mermin – that purport to provide actual counterexamples to Bell's claim that nonlocality is required to account for the empirically verified quantum predictions. After analyzing each theory's grounds for claiming to explain the EPR–Bell correlations locally, however, one can see that (despite a number of fundamental differences) the two theories share a common for-all-practical-purposes (FAPP) solipsistic character. This dramatically undermines such theories’ claims to provide a local explanation of the correlations and thus, by concretizing the ridiculous philosophical lengths to which one must go to elude Bell's own conclusion, reinforces the assertion that nonlocality really is required to coherently explain the empirical data. Introduction Fifty years ago, in 1964 [1], John Stewart Bell first proved the theorem that has become widely known as “Bell's Theorem” but that Bell himself instead referred to as the “locality inequality theorem” [2]. In Bell's own view, the theorem showed that the empirical predictions of local theories will be constrained by Bell's inequality (or as Bell himself preferred to call it, the “locality inequality”). Hence, nonlocality is a necessary feature of any theory that shares the empirical predictions of standard quantum mechanics.
The Bell's theorem stands as an insuperable roadblock in the path to a very desired intuitive solution of the EPR paradox and, hence, it lies at the core of the current lack of a clear interpretation of the quantum formalism. The theorem states through an experimentally testable inequality that the predictions of quantum mechanics for the Bell's polarization states of two entangled particles cannot be reproduced by any statistical model of hidden variables that shares certain intuitive features. In this paper, we show, however, that the proof of the Bell's theorem involves a subtle, though crucial, assumption that is not required by fundamental physical principles and, hence, it is not necessarily fulfilled in the experimental setup that tests the inequality. Indeed, this assumption can neither be properly implemented within the standard framework of quantum mechanics. Namely, the proof of the theorem assumes that there exists a preferred absolute frame of reference, supposedly provided by the lab, which enables to compare the orientation of the polarization measurement devices for successive realizations of the experiment and, hence, to define jointly their response functions over the space of hypothetical hidden configurations for all their possible alternative settings. We notice, however, that only the relative orientation between the two measurement devices in every single realization of the experiment is a properly defined physical degree of freedom, while their global rigid orientation is a spurious gauge degree of freedom. Hence, the preferred frame of reference required by the proof of the Bell's theorem does not necessarily exist. In fact, it cannot exist in models in which the gauge symmetry of the experimental setup under global rigid rotations of the two detectors is spontaneously broken by the hidden configurations of the pair of entangled particles and a non-zero geometric phase appears under some cyclic gauge symmetry transformations. Following this observation, we build an explicitly local model of hidden variables that reproduces the predictions of quantum mechanics for the Bell's states.
This paper discusses a possible resolution of the nonobjectivity-nonlocality dilemma in quantum mechanics in 'the light of experimental tests of the Bell inequality for two entangled photons and a Bell-like inequality for a single neutron. My conclusion is that these experiments show that quantum mechanics is nonobjective: that is, the values of physical observables cannot be assigned to a system before measurement. Bell's assumption of nonlocality has to be rejected as having no direct experimental confirmation, at least thus far. I also consider the relationships between nonobjectivity and contextuality. Specifically, I analyze the impact of the Kochen-Specker theorem on the problem of contextuality of quantum observables. I argue that, just as von Neumann's "no-go" theorem, the Kochen-Specker theorem is based on assumptions that do not correspond to the real physical situation. Finally, I present a theory of measurement based on a classical, purely wave model (pre-quantum classical statistical field theory), a model that reproduces quantum probabilities. In this model continuous fields are transformed into discrete clicks of detectors. While this model is classical, it is nonobjective. In this case, nonobjectivity is the result of the dependence of experimental outcomes on the context of measurement, in accordance with Bohr's view.
Quantum mechanics provides a statistical description about nature, and thus would be incomplete if its statistical predictions could not be accounted for some realistic models with hidden variables. There are, however, two powerful theorems against the hidden-variable theories showing that certain quantum features cannot be reproduced based on two rationale premises of classicality, the Bell theorem, and noncontextuality, due to Bell, Kochen and Specker (BKS) . Tests of the Bell inequality and the BKS theorem are both of fundamental interests and of great significance . The Bell theorem has already been experimentally verified extensively on many different systems , while the quantum contextuality, which is independent of nonlocality and manifests itself even in a single object, is experimentally more demanding. Moreover, the contextuality has been shown to play a critical role to supply the `magic' for quantum computation, making more extensive experimental verifications in potential systems for quantum computing even more stringent. Here we report an experimental verification of quantum contextuality on an individual atomic nuclear spin-1 system in solids under ambient condition. Such a three-level system is indivisible and thus the compatibility loophole, which exists in the experiments performed on bipartite systems, is closed. Our experimental results confirm that the quantum contextuality cannot be explained by nonlocal entanglement, revealing the fundamental quantumness other than locality/nonlocality within the intrinsic spin freedom of a concrete natural atomic solid-state system at room temperature.