Usually the 'hidden variables' of Bell's theorem are supposed to describe the pair of Bell particles. Here a semantic shift is proposed, namely to attach the hidden variables to a stochastic medium or field in which the particles move. It appears that under certain conditions one of the premises of Bell's theorem, namely 'measurement independence', is not satisfied for such 'background-based' theories, even if these only involve local interactions. Such theories therefore do not fall under the restriction of Bell's no-go theorem. A simple version of such background-based models are Ising models, which we investigate here in the classical and quantum regime. We also propose to test background-based models by a straightforward extension of existing experiments. The present version corrects an error in the preceding version.
Usually the 'hidden variables' of Bell's theorem are supposed to describe the pair of Bell particles. Here a semantic shift is proposed, namely to attach the hidden variables to a stochastic medium or field in which the particles move. It appears that under certain conditions one of the premises of Bell's theorem, namely 'measurement independence', is not satisfied for such 'background-based' theories, even if these only involve local interactions. Such theories therefore do not fall under the restriction of Bell's no-go theorem. A simple version of such background-based models are Ising models, which we investigate here in the classical and quantum regime. We also propose to test background-based models by a straightforward extension of existing experiments. The present version corrects an error in the preceding version.
As was remarked two years ago at a symposium of the PSA on locality and hidden variables (Shimony 1981), the Bell theorems together with experiments supporting the quantum correlations (violating the inequalities of the theorems) provide a rather remarkable opportunity for philosophy. Shimony summed this up in the nice phrase, “experimental metaphysics”. For, as he pointed out, arguments based on Bell-type theorems, concluding that certain experiments should exhibit correlations obeying a certain inequality, generally employ premises of a metaphysical character, e.g., that the systems in question are deterministic (in the experimental observables). If, in fact, the experimental predictions are violated, and if one has reason to believe any other premises involved, then one must give up the metaphysical hypothesis.
Experiments motivated by Bell's theorem have led some physicists to conclude that quantum theory is nonlocal. However, the theoretical basis for such claims is usually taken to be Bell's Theorem, which shows only that if certain predictions of quantum theory are correct, and a strong hidden-variable assumption is valid, then a certain locality condition must fail. This locality condition expresses the idea that what an experimenter freely chooses to measure in one spacetime region can have no effect of any kind in a second region situated spacelike relative to the first. The experimental results conform closely to the predictions of quantum theory in such cases, but the most reasonable conclusion to draw is not that locality fails, but rather that the hidden-variable assumption is false. For this assumption conflicts with the quantum precept that unperformed experiments have no outcomes. The present paper deduces the failure of this locality condition directly from the precepts of quantum theory themselves, in a way that generates no inconsistency or any conflict with the predictions of relativistic quantum field theory.
In a recent article Giustina et al. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 250401 (2015)] report on an advanced Bell experiment, simultaneously closing loopholes for local hidden-variable theories. The authors claim that 'local realism' has been refuted, unless 'truly exotic hypotheses' are made. Here I argue that a particularly wide and natural class of local hidden-variable theories survives, for instance when the hidden variables describe a background field. Such background-based theories exploit the freedom-of-choice loophole, which cannot be closed for this type of hidden variables. The dynamics of such models can be illustrated by existing systems, e.g. from fluid mechanics.
The strongest attack against quantum mechanics came in 1935 in the form of a paper by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen. It was argued that the theory of quantum mechanics could not be called a complete theory of Nature, for every element of reality is not represented in the formalism as such. The authors then put forth a proposition: we must search for a theory where, upon knowing everything about the system, including possible hidden variables, one could make precise predictions concerning elements of reality. This project was ultimatly doomed in 1964 with the work of Bell Bell, who showed that the most general local hidden variable theory could not reproduce correlations that arise in quantum mechanics. There exist mainly three forms of no-go theorems for local hidden variable theories. Although almost every physicist knows the consequences of these no-go theorems, not every physicist is aware of the distinctions between the three or even their exact definitions. Thus we will discuss here the three principal forms of no-go theorems for local hidden variable theories of Nature. We will define Bell theorems, Bell theorems without inequalities and pseudo-telepathy. A discussion of the similarities and differences will follow. 1
Besides well-known conditions of locality or factorisability, deriving the Bell inequalities requires assuming that the distribution of hidden variables and Alice's and Bob's measurement settings be independent of each other. We show that (analogously to violations of locality due to action at a distance) certain violations of this Measurement Independence assumption can be associated with a notion of signalling in principle, thus making them also testable in principle, and spell out the appropriate conditions. Accordingly, we show that by imposing no-signalling one can prove a version of Bell's theorem that does not require the assumption of Measurement Independence. We discuss the "Schulman model" as an example, as well as lessons for "experimental metaphysics".
Bell's theorem is 50 years old. Still there is a controversy about its implications. Much of it has its roots in confusion regarding the premises from which the theorem can be derived. Some claim that a derivation of Bell's inequalities requires just locality assumption, and nothing more. Violations of the inequalities are then interpreted as ``nonlocality'' or ``quantum nonlocality''. We show that such claims are unfounded and that every derivation of Bell's inequalities requires a premise -- in addition to locality and freedom of choice -- which is either assumed tacitly, or unconsciously, or is embedded in a single compound condition (like Bell's ``local causality''). The premise is equivalent to the assumption of existence of additional variables which do not appear in the quantum formalism (in form of determinism, or joint probability for outcomes of all conceivable measurements, or ``additional causes`'', or ``hidden variables'', ``complete description of the state'' or counterfactual definiteness, etc.). A certain irony is that perhaps the main message of violation of Bell's inequalities is that our notion of locality should be based on an operationally well-defined no-signalling condition, rather than on local causality.