Abstract Violations of Bell inequalities have been an incontestable indicator of non-classicality since the seminal paper by John Bell. However, recent claims of Bell inequalities violations with classical light have cast some doubts on their significance as hallmarks of non-classicality. Here, we challenge those claims. The crux of the problem is that such classical experiments simulate quantum probabilities with intensities of classical fields. However, fields intensities measurements are radically different from single-photon detections, which are primitives of any genuine Bell experiment. We show that this fundamental difference between field intensities measurements and single photon detections shifts the classical bound of relevant Bell inequalities to its non-signaling limit, leaving no place for their violations.
Abstract Violations of Bell inequalities have been an incontestable indicator of non-classicality since the seminal paper by John Bell. However, recent claims of Bell inequalities violations with classical light have cast some doubts on their significance as hallmarks of non-classicality. Here, we challenge those claims. The crux of the problem is that such classical experiments simulate quantum probabilities with intensities of classical fields. However, fields intensities measurements are radically different from single-photon detections, which are primitives of any genuine Bell experiment. We show that this fundamental difference between field intensities measurements and single photon detections shifts the classical bound of relevant Bell inequalities to its non-signaling limit, leaving no place for their violations.
Abstract Seminal for the raising of the quantum information age and quintessential for a deep understanding of nature, Bell inequality violations are known for having provided a profound disruption to classical models of the physical world. Yet, their meaning is still debatable nowadays. An important point under dispute in this context concerns the relevance of realism. While some believe that a Bell inequality violation implies the manifestation of nonlocal aspects, others defend that it is the notion of realism that should be abandoned. The purpose of the present work is to shed some light on the matter by employing a formal definition of (ir)realism. Our strategy consists of (i) rephrasing Bell’s assumption of local causality in terms of more primitive hypotheses and (ii) assessing where the fundamental difficulties emerge when using the quantum formalism. We analyze the question posed in the title using two distinct approaches and assert that a positive answer is justifiable. Nevertheless, even in this scenario, it becomes evident that violations of locality cannot be avoided. As a byproduct of our approach, the connections of (ir)realism with both quantum steering and entanglement are also discussed.
Conventional tests of Bell’s inequality rely on entangled photon pairs. Here, we replace entangled pairs with two independent photons of orthogonal polarization, and demonstrate that Bell’s inequality is still violated. Given the inherent local realism of independent photons, this experiment proves that Bell’s inequality cannot falsify the local realism of photons. We thus conjecture that the violation of Bell’s inequality by entangled photon pairs originates from their orthogonal polarizations, rather than the breakdown of local realism. To interpret this unexpected violation with independent photons, we further substitute the two photons with two monochromatic light beams, and calculate the transmittance correlation through polarizers via Malus’s law and Karl Pearson’s correlation formula. We show that this correlation also defies Bell’s inequality. Retracing the derivation of Bell’s inequality reveals its validity is restricted to binary events, which accounts for the observed violation with light beams. Finally, we propose a thought experiment involving gradual attenuation of light intensity down to the single-photon regime, and hypothesize that single-photon transmission through a polarizer does not constitute a binary event. This hypothesis provides a unified interpretation for both our experimental findings and all canonical Bell inequality tests reported to date.
Violations of Bell inequalities in classical optics have been demonstrated in terms of field mean intensities and correlations, however, the quantum meaning of violations point to statistics and probabilities. We present a violation of Bell inequalities for classical fields in terms of probabilities, where we convert classical-field intensities into probabilities via the standard photon-counting equation. We find violation for both, entangled and separable field states. We conclude that any obtained quantum effect might be fully ascribed to the quantum nature of the detector rather than the field itself. Finally, we develop a new Bell-like criterion which is satisfied by factorized states and it is not by the entangled state.
Genovese and Piacentini [] claim that, in a recent experiment [S. Virzì , ], the Bell parameter was measured on a single pair of photons, thus challenging several conclusions and discussions on the meaning of Bell inequalities as well as certain quantum mechanical interpretations. We explain that the parameter measured in the experiment of Virzì is not the Bell parameter S , which has been discussed and estimated in many loophole-free tests. Therefore, this experiment neither challenges our understanding of Bell tests nor allows having doubts about Bohr complementarity and contextuality.
Predetermined physical properties cannot manifest at the same time if they are mutually exclusive. As part of a single system, they become observable at different times, in sequence. In this case, pairwise detections in a narrow window of coincidence allow for maximal Bell violations (S=4 for the CHSH protocol), without room for doubt about the local nature of the process. This shows that a deeper description of physical reality is possible, as suggested by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen. Though, a more inclusive definition of Realism is required, in order to account for Bohr’s Contextuality.
This short article concentrates on the conceptual aspects of the violation of Bell inequalities, and acts as a map to the 265 cited references. The article outlines (a) relevant characteristics of quantum mechanics, such as statistical balance and entanglement, (b) the thinking that led to the derivation of the original Bell inequality, and (c) the range of claimed implications, including realism, locality and others which attract less attention. The main conclusion is that violation of Bell inequalities appears to have some implications for the nature of physical reality, but that none of these are definite. The violations constrain possible prequantum (underlying) theories, but do not rule out the possibility that such theories might reconcile at least one understanding of locality and realism to quantum mechanical predictions. Violation might reflect, at least partly, failure to acknowledge the contextuality of quantum mechanics, or that data from different probability spaces have been inappropriately combined. Many claims that there are definite implications reflect one or more of (i) imprecise non-mathematical language, (ii) assumptions inappropriate in quantum mechanics, (iii) inadequate treatment of measurement statistics and (iv) underlying philosophical assumptions.