This article contains a review of Nelson's analysis of Bell's theorem. It shows that Bell's inequalities can be violated with a theory of local random variables if one accepts that the outcomes of these variables are not predetermined prior to measurement. The article describes the relation between Bell's theorem and the Strong Free Will theorem of Conway and Kochen. Then, the original articles of Bell are analyzed in detail. Following an article of Faris, it is explained that Bell's work on the hidden variable question in fact describes two separate theorems. Bell's first theorem says that there can be no model for the singlet state where an outcome does not depend locally on the settings of the detector where the outcome was measured. Bell's second theorem shows that Bell's inequalities can be violated by a theory that is either not deterministic, or violates causality in the sense of relativity or the free will assumption of the experimenters. It is shown in detail where Bell implicitly makes the various locality assumptions that Nelson has shown to be necessary for deriving Bell's inequality. The article closes by relating the various assumptions needed to derive Bell's theorem with the reality criterion of EPR
This article contains a review of Nelson's analysis of Bell's theorem. It shows that Bell's inequalities can be violated with a theory of local random variables if one accepts that the outcomes of these variables are not predetermined prior to measurement. The article describes the relation between Bell's theorem and the Strong Free Will theorem of Conway and Kochen. Then, the original articles of Bell are analyzed in detail. Following an article of Faris, it is explained that Bell's work on the hidden variable question in fact describes two separate theorems. Bell's first theorem says that there can be no model for the singlet state where an outcome does not depend locally on the settings of the detector where the outcome was measured. Bell's second theorem shows that Bell's inequalities can be violated by a theory that is either not deterministic, or violates causality in the sense of relativity or the free will assumption of the experimenters. It is shown in detail where Bell implicitly makes the various locality assumptions that Nelson has shown to be necessary for deriving Bell's inequality. The article closes by relating the various assumptions needed to derive Bell's theorem with the reality criterion of EPR
In 1985, Edward Nelson, who formulated the theory of stochastic mechanics, made an interesting remark on Bell's theorem. Nelson analysed the latter in the light of classical fields that behave randomly. He found that if a stochastic hidden variable theory fulfils certain conditions, the inequality of Bell can be violated. Moreover, Nelson was able to prove that this may happen without any instantaneous communication between the two spatially separated measurement stations. Since Nelson's article got almost overlooked by physicists, we try to review his comments on Bell's theorem. We argue that a modification of stochastic mechanics published recently by Fritsche and Haugk can be extended to a theory which fulfils the requirements of Nelson's analysis. The article proceeds to derive the quantum mechanical formalism of spinning particles and the Pauli equation from this version of stochastic mechanics. Then, we investigate Bohm's version of the EPR experiment. Additionally, other setups, like entanglement swapping or time and position correlations, are shortly explained from the viewpoint of our local hidden-variable model. Finally, we mention that this theory could perhaps be relativistically extended.
In 1985, Edward Nelson, who formulated the theory of stochastic mechanics, made an interesting remark on Bell’s theorem. Nelson analysed the latter in the light of classical fields that behave randomly. He found that if a stochastic hidden variable theory fulfils certain conditions, the inequality of Bell can be violated. Moreover, Nelson was able to prove that this may happen without any instantaneous communication between the two spatially separated measurement stations. Since Nelson’s article got almost overlooked by physicists, we try to review his comments on Bell’s theorem. We argue that a modification of stochastic mechanics published recently by Fritsche and Haugk can be extended to a theory which fulfils the requirements of Nelson’s analysis. The article proceeds to derive the quantum mechanical formalism of spinning particles and the Pauli equation from this version of stochastic mechanics. Then, we investigate Bohm’s version of the EPR experiment. Additionally, other setups, like entanglement swapping or time and position correlations, are shortly explained from the viewpoint of our local hidden-variable model. Finally, we mention that this theory could perhaps be relativistically extended.
Abstract In 1985, Edward Nelson, who formulated the theory of stochastic mechanics, made an interesting remark about Bell's theorem. Nelson analysed the latter in the light of classical fields that behave randomly. He found that if a stochastic hidden variable theory fulfils certain conditions, the inequality of Bell can be violated. Moreover, Nelson was able to prove that this may happen without any instantaneous communication between the two spatially separated measurement stations. Since Nelson's article got almost overlooked by physicists, we try to review his comments on the theorem. We argue that a modification of stochastic mechanics published recently by Fritsche and Haugk can be extended to a theory which fulfils the requirements of Nelson's analysis. The article proceeds to derive the quantum mechanical formalism of spinning particles and the Pauli equation from this version of stochastic mechanics. Then, we investigate Bohm's version of the EPR experiment. Additionally, other setups, like entanglement swapping or time and position correlations, are shortly explained from the viewpoint of our local hidden‐variable model. Finally, we mention that this theory could perhaps be relativistically extended and useful for the formulation of quantum mechanics in curved space‐times.
By implicitly assuming that all possible Bell-measurements occur simultaneously, all proofs of Bell's Theorem violate Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. This assumption is made in the original form of Bell's inequality, in Wigner's probability inequalities, and in the ``nonlocality without inequalities'' arguments. The introduction of time into derivations of these variants of Bell's theorem results in extra terms related to the time order of the measurements used in constructing correlation coefficients. Since the same locality assumptions are made in the Heisenberg-compliant derivations of this paper, only time-independent classical local hidden variable theories are forbidden by violations of the original Bell inequalities; time-dependent quantum local hidden variable theories can satisfy this new bound and agree with experiment. We further point out that factorizable wavefunctions have been used to describe some EPR experiments and can be used to describe others. These will generate local de Broglie-Bohm trajectories in the description of the data. This second, independent, line of argument also shows that violation of Bell's inequality is only evidence that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle cannot be ignored.
Bell inequality is violated in quantum mechanics and in experiments. Bell's theorem, on the other hand, concludes that quantum physics or nature is hence nonlocal. Bell's derivation of such a theorem comes in two versions, BT1 in which he started with determinism assumption in his 1964 original paper, and BT2 in his 1976 paper where he started with a "local causality" condition (LC). In this paper we show that (LC) does not follow from the physical concept of local causality except in the determinism limit. A local hidden variable model for the singlet pair is given that yields the correct quantum predictions for pair correlations. We also show determinism flagrantly violates quantum predictions. Thus Bell's theorem has no scope of applicability on possible hidden variable theory for quantum mechanics.
We argue that for the proof of Bell's theorem no assumptions about realism or free will are necessary. The key formula E(AB∣a,b)=∫A(a,b,λ)B(a,b,λ)ρ(λ)dλ follows from the logic of plausible reasoning (the objective Bayesian interpretation of probability theory) taken alone, without any further assumptions about realism. The space Λ, usually interpreted as some space of `hidden variables', can be constructed for an arbitrary `field of discourse' using Stone's theorem. The rejection of superdeterminism follows from logical independence -- the non-existence of information which suggest a dependence -- of the free decisions of the experimenters from everything else. To prove the Bell inequality it is, then, sufficient to reduce this to E(AB∣a,b)=∫A(a,λ)B(b,λ)ρ(λ)dλ. This follows for space-like separated measurements from Einstein causality alone. So, the consequence of the violation of Bell's inequality is that Einstein causality has been empirically falsified, without any loopholes left. We consider and reject the idea of weakening the logic of plausible reasoning could be used to create a loophole. Finally, we discuss what can be used to replace Einstein causality. While weak (signal) Einstein causality holds, it follows either from a notion of strong causality or from human inability to prepare states which violate quantum uncertainty, which makes it uninteresting for fundamental considerations. A notion of strong causality has either unacceptable causal loops or requires a hidden preferred frame. Given that a hidden preferred frame is completely compatible with modern physics, it is argued that this choice is preferable.