Certain predictions of quantum theory are not compatible with the notion of local-realism. This was the content of Bell’s famous theorem of the year 1964. Bell proved this with the help of an inequality, famously known as Bell’s inequality. The alternative proofs of Bell’s theorem without using Bell’s inequality are known as “nonlocality without inequality (NLWI)” proofs. We review one such proof namely the Hardy’s proof which due to its simplicity and generality has been considered the best version of Bell’s theorem.
Certain predictions of quantum theory are not compatible with the notion of local-realism. This was the content of Bell’s famous theorem of the year 1964. Bell proved this with the help of an inequality, famously known as Bell’s inequality. The alternative proofs of Bell’s theorem without using Bell’s inequality are known as “nonlocality without inequality (NLWI)” proofs. We review one such proof namely the Hardy’s proof which due to its simplicity and generality has been considered the best version of Bell’s theorem.
Local realistic models cannot completely describe all predictions of quantum mechanics. This is known as Bell's theorem that can be revealed either by violations of Bell inequality, or all-versus-nothing proof of nonlocality. Hardy's paradox is an important all-versus-nothing proof and is considered as ``the simplest form of Bell's theorem.'' In this work, we advance the study of Hardy's paradox based on Bell's inequality. Our formalism is essentially equivalent to the ``logical Bell inequality'' formalism developed by Abramsky and Hardy, but ours is more easily applied to experimental tests. Remarkably, we find that not only for a two-qubit two-setting case but also for a two-qubit four-setting case, we can construct stronger Hardy-type paradoxes based on Bell's inequality, whose successful probabilities can attain four times and seven times larger than the original one, respectively, thus providing more friendly tests for experiment. Meanwhile, we experimentally test the stronger Hardy-type paradoxes in a two-qubit system. Within the experimental errors, the experimental results coincide with the theoretical predictions.
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.
But this conclusion [nonlocality] needs careful discussion in order to clarify what is going on . (Redhead 1987, p. 3) Within the foundations of physics in recent years, Bell's theorem has played the role of what Thomas Kuhn calls a ‘paradigm’: that is, an exemplary piece of work that others learn from, imitate and develop. Following a period of articulation and consolidation, the first generation of developments of the Bell theorem was initiated by Heywood and Redhead (1983). They produced a nonlocality result in the algebraic style of the Bell–Kochen–Specker theorem (Bell 1966; Kochen and Specker 1967), moving away from the probabilistic relations characteristic of the Bell theorems proper. More recently a second generation develops results by Peres (1990), Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger (1990), and Hardy (1993). In addition to moving away from probabilities, this generation tries to dispense with the limiting inequalities of the Bell theorem to yield socalled ‘Bell theorems without inequalities’. With respect to probabilities, however, Hardy is a half-way house. It requires no inequalities but the result contradicts quantum mechanics under certain locality assumptions only if the statistical predictions of quantum mechanics hold in at least one case. I want to examine the Hardy theorem and its interpretation. Initially, I intend to ignore respects in which it dispenses with probabilities because I want to point out the interesting significance of the theorem in a probabilistic context. We will see that when probabilities are restored, so are inequalities. Then we will see what the theorem has to contribute on the topic of locality.
Bell showed 50 years ago that quantum theory is nonlocal via his celebrated inequalities, turning the issue of quantum nonlocality from a matter of taste into a matter of test. Years later, Hardy proposed a test for nonlocality without inequality, which is a kind of "something-versus-nothing" argument. Hardy's test for n particles induces an n-partite Bell's inequality with two dichotomic local measurements for each observer, which has been shown to be violated by all entangled pure states. Our first result is to show that the Bell-Hardy inequality arising form Hardy's nonlocality test is tight for an arbitrary number of parties, i.e., it defines a facet of the Bell polytope in the given scenario. On the other hand quantum theory is not that nonlocal since it forbids signaling and even not as nonlocal as allowed by non-signaling conditions, i.e., quantum mechanical predictions form a strict subset of the so called non-signaling polytope. In the scenario of each observer measuring two dichotomic observables, Fritz established a duality between the Bell polytope and the non-signaling polytope: tight Bell's inequalities, the facets of the Bell polytope, are in a one-to-one correspondence with extremal non-signaling boxes, the vertices of the non-signaling polytope. Our second result is to provide an alternative and more direct formula for this duality. As an example, the tight Bell-Hardy inequality gives rise to an extremal non-signaling box that serves as a natural multipartite generalization of Popescu-Rohrlich box.
Despite their Nobel prize-winning empirical verification, the interpretation of the Bell inequality remains controversial. The alleged nonlocal character of quantum mechanics is inextricably related to the formulation of the Bell theorem. However, as is usually presented, the relation disagrees with Bell's approach and is inappropriately posed. The departure from the clear line of reasoning that Bell tried to convey has contributed to a polarization of part of the scientific community. We review part of Bell's work and show how the correct appreciation of Bell's rationale calls for reformulating a widespread argument on quantum nonlocality, yielding a more balanced perspective of the problem. We highlight a more formal proof of quantum mechanics' violation of local causality. For completeness, we mention a few alternatives that may justify considering quantum mechanics as a local theory.
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.