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.
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.
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.
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'.
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.
Why ψ is incomplete indeed: a simple illustration
With the Nobel Prize attributed to Aspect, Clauser, and Zeilinger, the international scientific community acknowledged the fundamental importance of the experimental violation of Bell's inequalities. It is however still debated what fails in Bell's hypotheses, leading to these inequalities, and usually summarized as "local realism", or maybe more appropriately "classical local realism". The most common explanation is "quantum non-locality", that remains however fully compatible with relativistic causality; this makes wondering whether any non-local phenomenon is really involved in these experiments. Here we want to recapitulate another option, sometimes called "predictive incompleteness", closely related to the idea that the usual state vector ψ is incomplete indeed, as it was claimed by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen. However, the right way to complete ψ has nothing to do with hidden variables, but requires to specify the measurement context, as it was claimed by Bohr. Here we will consider the simple case of two spin 1/2, or two qubits, in order to keep the argument simple, but it does apply generally in quantum mechanics.
We show that the proofs of Bell’s theorem regarding the Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen paradox about incompleteness of Quantum Mechanics implicitly use a negation of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, for particles taken separately. Moreover, we show that the entanglement of the pair of particules, hidden variables and locality property are not necessary to establish the theorem. In other words, the theorem only speaks about Heisenberg’s principle and its experimental violation is simply another demonstration of the fundamental character of this principle. Therefore, the paradox is still alive and abandoning the locality property, as often advocated, is premature.
An overview of the history of Bell’s inequality is given, beginning with the so-called EPR paradox originally put forward by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen and the impossibility proof of von Neumann. Bell’s inequality, which ultimately shifted the discussion from arguments based on philosophically introduced postulates to the domain of experimental physics, is presented together with experimental attempts from the early 1970s to 2010s to violate this inequality. We introduce three historical loopholes in the experimental schemes which have prevented experimentalists from being able to fully disprove the possibility of a hidden-variables description of nature. Recent experimental data indicate that all the main loopholes are now closed for photons (albeit not simultaneously in one experiment). Besides the class of stochastic local realism that have been tested experimentally, some other possible classical interpretations are mentioned.