This note shows how one can be led from considerations of quantum steering to Bell's theorem. The point is that steering remote systems by choosing between two measurements can be described in a local theory if we take quantum states to be associated many-to-one with the underlying "real states" of the world. Once one adds a third measurement this is no longer possible. Historically this is not how Bell's theorem arose - there are slight and subtle differences in the arguments - but it could have been.
This note shows how one can be led from considerations of quantum steering to Bell's theorem. The point is that steering remote systems by choosing between two measurements can be described in a local theory if we take quantum states to be associated many-to-one with the underlying "real states" of the world. Once one adds a third measurement this is no longer possible. Historically this is not how Bell's theorem arose - there are slight and subtle differences in the arguments - but it could have been.
We show how one can be led from considerations of quantum steering to Bell's theorem. We begin with Einstein's demonstration that, assuming local realism, quantum states must be in a many-to-one ("incomplete") relationship with the real physical states of the system. We then consider some simple constraints that local realism imposes on any such incomplete model of physical reality, and show they are not satisfiable. In particular, we present a very simple demonstration for the absence of a local hidden variable incomplete description of nature by steering to two ensembles, one of which contains a pair of non-orthogonal states. Historically this is not how Bell's theorem arose - there are slight and subtle differences in the arguments - but it could have been.
It is shown that a main source of conflict between Einstein and the mainstream quantum physicists was his insistence that wave functions, like classical probability distributions, do not refer to individual particles and, in particular, do not describe individual systems completely. The EPR paper was written to argue for this position. By aiming at showing that wave functions are unsuitable as local hidden variables, the authors failed to see that a slight extension could have ruled out such local hidden variables in general. As background for this analysis of the EPR argument the notion of steering is described, and a version of the Bell argument is proved which emphasizes non-local signalling aspects. Finally, some background is given concerning a well-known paper by the present author, which is celebrating 25 years this year, and in which the first non-steering models were constructed. This article is part of a special issue of Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical devoted to '50 years of Bell's theorem'.
In this Einstein Year of Physics it seems appropriate to look at an important aspect of Einstein's work that is often down-played: his contribution to the debate on the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Contrary to physics ‘folklore’, Bohr had no defence against Einstein's 1935 attack (the EPR paper) on the claimed completeness of orthodox quantum mechanics. I suggest that Einstein's argument, as stated most clearly in 1946, could justly be called Einstein's reality – locality – completeness theorem, since it proves that one of these three must be false. Einstein's instinct was that completeness of orthodox quantum mechanics was the falsehood, but he failed in his quest to find a more complete theory that respected reality and locality. Einstein's theorem, and possibly Einstein's failure, inspired John Bell in 1964 to prove his reality – locality theorem. This strengthened Einstein's theorem (but showed the futility of his quest) by demonstrating that either reality or locality is a falsehood. This revealed the full non-locality of the quantum world for the first time.
While it is widely agreed that Bell's theorem is an important result in the foundations of quantum physics, there is much disagreement about what exactly Bell's theorem shows. It is agreed that Bell derived a contradiction with experimental facts from some list of assumptions, thus showing that at least one of the assumptions must be wrong; but there is disagreement about what the assumptions were that went into the argument. In this paper, I make a few points in order to help clarify the situation. Introduction Different authors have expressed very different views about what Bell's theorem shows about physics. The disagreement concerns particularly the question of which assumptions go into the argument. Since we have to give up one of the assumptions leading to the empirically violated Bell inequality, knowing what the assumptions were is crucial. For example, if author X believes that the argument requires only one assumption, A 1 , while author Y believes that it requires two, A 1 and A 2 , then X will conclude that A 1 ¬ must be abandoned, while Y will conclude that either A 1 or A 2 must abandoned, so A 1 may well be true in our world if A 2 is false. In this paper, I consider several assumptions that have been mentioned in connection with Bell's theorem, and I look into their roles in the proof of Bell's theorem. While I do not say anything here that has never been said before, I hope that my remarks can nevertheless be helpful to some readers. For the sake of definiteness, the version of the relevant experiment that I will consider involves two spin-1\2 particles, initially in the singlet spin state ψ = 2 −1/2 (|↑↓ ⟩ − |↓↑ ⟩). Two widely separated experimenters, Alice and Bob, have one particle transported to each of them. At spacelike separation, they each choose a direction in space, represented by the unit vectors a and b , and carry out a quantum measurement of the spin observable in this direction on their particle, ( a · σ ) ⊗ I and I ⊗ ( b · σ ), with I the 2 × 2 unit matrix and σ the triple of Paulimatrices. The possible outcomes, A and B , are±1 on each side. Bell's theorem is the statement that under the assumptions we are about to discuss, Bell's inequality holds; quantum theory predicts violations of Bell's inequality, and experiments have confirmed these predictions.
Introduction Since its inception, fifty years ago, Bell's theorem has had a long history not only of experimental tests but also of theoretical developments. Studying pairs of correlated quantummechanical particles separated in space, in a composite “entangled” state, Bell [1] showed that the joint ascription of hidden variables and locality to the system led to an inequality that is violated by the predictions of quantum mechanics. Fifteen years later, experiments confirmed the predictions of quantum mechanics, ruling out a large class of local realist theories. One of the most meaningful theoretical developments that followed Bell's work was the Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger (GHZ) theorem, also known as Bell's theorem without inequalities. In 1989, the American physicists Daniel Greenberger and Michael Horne, who had been working on Bell's theorem since the late 1960s, together with the Austrian physicist Anton Zeilinger, introduced a novelty into the testing of entanglement, extending Bell's theorem in a different and interesting direction. According to Franck Laloë [2], For many years, everyone thought that Bell had basically exhausted the subject by considering all really interesting situations, and that two-spin systems provided the most spectacular quantum violations of local realism. It therefore came as a surprise to many when in 1989 Greenberger, Horne, and Zeilinger (GHZ) showed that systems containing more than two correlated particles may actually exhibit even more dramatic violations of local realism. The trio analyzed the Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen 1935 argument once again and were able to write what are now called Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger (GHZ) entangled states, involving three or four correlated spin-1/2 particles, leading to conflicts between local realist theories and quantum mechanics. However, unlike Bell's theorem, the conflict now was not of a statistical nature, as was the case with Bell's theorem, insofar as measurements on a single GHZ state could lead to conflicting predictions with local realistic models [3–5]. In this paper we present the history of the creation of this theorem and analyze its scope.
The Bell theorem [103] can be seen in several different ways, as the EPR argument. Initially, Bell invented it as a direct logical continuation of the EPR theorem: the idea is to take the existence of the EPR elements of reality seriously, and to push it further by introducing them explicitly into the mathematics with the notation λ; one then proceeds to study all possible kinds of correlations that can be obtained from the fluctuations of one or several variables λ, making the condition of locality explicit in the mathematics (locality was already useful in the EPR theorem, but not used in equations). The reasoning develops within determinism (considered as proved by the EPR reasoning) and classical probabilities; it studies in a completely general way all kinds of correlations that can be predicted from the fluctuations of some classical common cause in the past – if one prefers, from some random choice concerning the initial state of the system. This leads to the famous inequalities. But subsequent studies have shown that the scope of the Bell theorem is not limited to determinism; for instance, the λ variables may determine the probabilities of the results of future experiments, instead of the results themselves (see Appendix B), without canceling the theorem. We postpone the discussion of the various possible generalizations to §4.2.3. For the moment, we just emphasize that the essential condition for the validity of the Bell theorem is locality: all kinds of fluctuations can be assumed, but their effect must affect physics only locally.