arXiv:1808.03762

HAS CHSH-INEQUALITY ANY RELATION TO EPR-ARGUMENT?

Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

Published May 26, 2020• 3 citations

Abstract

We emphasize the role of the precise correlations loophole in attempting to connect the CHSH type inequalities with the EPR-argument. The possibility to test theories with hidden variables experimentally by using such inequalities is questioned. The role of the original Bell inequality is highlighted. The interpretation of the CHSH inequality in the spirit of Bohr, as a new test of incompatibility, is presented. The positions of Bohr, Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen, Bell, Clauser, Horne, Shimony, Holt, De Broglie, Hertz, and Boltzmann on interrelation of theory and experiment are enlightened.

DOI: 10.1142/9789811217838_0008

Related papers

Towards Experiments to Test Violation of the Original Bell Inequality

Andrei Yu. Khrennikov, Irina Basieva

The aim of this paper is to attract the attention of experimenters to the original Bell (OB) inequality that was shadowed by the common consideration of the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) inequality. There are two reasons to test the OB inequality and not the CHSH inequality. First of all, the OB inequality is a straightforward consequence to the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) argumentation. In addition, only this inequality is directly related to the EPR-Bohr debate. The second distinguishing feature of the OB inequality was emphasized by Itamar Pitowsky. He pointed out that the OB inequality provides a higher degree of violations of classicality than the CHSH inequality. For the CHSH inequality, the fraction of the quantum (Tsirelson) bound Q CHSH = 2 2 to the classical bound C CHSH = 2 , i.e., F CHSH = Q CHSH C CHSH = 2 is less than the fraction of the quantum bound for the OB inequality Q OB = 3 2 to the classical bound C OB = 1 , i.e., F OB = Q OB C OB = 3 2 . Thus, by violating the OB inequality, it is possible to approach a higher degree of deviation from classicality. The main problem is that the OB inequality is derived under the assumption of perfect (anti-) correlations. However, the last few years have been characterized by the amazing development of quantum technologies. Nowadays, there exist sources producing, with very high probability, the pairs of photons in the singlet state. Moreover, the efficiency of photon detectors was improved tremendously. In any event, one can start by proceeding with the fair sampling assumption. Another possibility is to use the scheme of the Hensen et al. experiment for entangled electrons. Here, the detection efficiency is very high.

arXiv:1801.09663EntropyApr 13, 201814 citations

Bell Inequalities

Reinhold A. Bertlmann, Nicolai Friis

Abstract This chapter presents a detailed discussion of Bell inequalities and their experimental tests. Starting from the Aharonov-Bohm version of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox, we review EPR’s criteria for realism and completeness and Bell’s locality condition, before deriving the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) inequality. This is followed by an exposition on Bell’s original inequality and other Bell inequalities by Wigner, as well as Clauser and Horne. We then discuss the milestones in the experimental violation of Bell inequalities, from the experiment of Freedman and Clauser in the 1970s, to the efforts of Aspect et al. in the 1980s, the experiments by the teams of Zeilinger and Gisin in the 1990s, and culminating the loophole-free tests in 2015. Finally we turn to a brief discussion of the interpretations of quantum mechanics, focusing on contrasting the realist views held by, e.g., Einstein and Bell, and the informational views with proponents such as Brukner and Zeilinger

Sep 7, 20231 citation

A Critical Review of Works Pertinent to the Einstein-Bohr Debate and Bell’s Theorem

K. Hess

This review is related to the Einstein-Bohr debate and to Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen’s (EPR) and Bohm’s (EPRB) Gedanken-experiments as well as their realization in actual experiments. I examine a significant number of papers, from my minority point of view and conclude that the well-known theorems of Bell and Clauser, Horne, Shimony and Holt (CHSH) deal with mathematical abstractions that have only a tenuous relation to quantum theory and the actual EPRB experiments. It is also shown that, therefore, Bell-CHSH cannot be used to assess the nature of quantum entanglement, nor can physical features of entanglement be used to prove Bell-CHSH. Their proofs are, among other factors, based on a statistical sampling argument that is invalid for general physical entities and processes and only applicable for finite “populations”; not for elements of physical reality that are linked, for example, to a time-like continuum. Bell-CHSH have, furthermore, neglected the subtleties of the theorem of Vorob’ev that includes their theorems as special cases. Vorob’ev found that certain combinatorial-topological cyclicities of classical random variables form a necessary and sufficient condition for the constraints that are now known as Bell-CHSH inequalities. These constraints, however, must not be linked to the observables of quantum theory nor to the actual EPRB experiments for a variety of reasons, including the existence of continuum-related variables and appropriate considerations of symmetry.

SymmetryJan 14, 202221 citations

EPR and Bell Theorem

Muhammad Suhail Zubairy

The first round of the Einstein–Bohr debates took place when Einstein challenged Bohr’s principle of complementarity at the Solvay conference in 1927 and Bohr successfully defended it. The most serious challenge, however, came in 1935 when a paper by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) argued that quantum mechanics was incomplete through a gedanken experiment motivating an approach based on hidden variables. In this chapter, EPR’s arguments about the incompleteness of quantum mechanics and Bohr’s reply to them are presented. The ultimate answer came almost 30 years later, almost ten years after Einstein’s death, and was nothing that Einstein would have expected. Bell’s inequality and the subsequent Bell-CHSH inequality, that are satisfied by all theories based on the “self-evident truths” of reality and locality are discussed. The startling results that quantum mechanics violates Bell’s inequality and the experimental results are in agreement with the prediction of quantum mechanics are presented.

Oxford University Press eBooksMay 7, 20200 citations

Hidden variable model for the Bell-Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt test based on the Bell-Kochen-Specker model for a qubit

F. De Zela

The validity of the Bell-Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (Bell-CHSH) inequality for hidden-variable models of the Bell type and the quantum prediction that said inequality can be violated are two indisputable assertions. However, one can prove wrong the assertion that no hidden-variable model is able to reproduce quantum predictions about the Bell-CHSH test. Here, we reproduce all quantum predictions of Bell-CHSH tests by means of the Bell-Kochen-Specker hidden-variable model for a qubit plus Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen “criterion of physical reality”.

Physics Letters AJul 17, 20260 citations

The Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt inequality in the context of a broad random variable

Felipe Andrade Velozo, José A. C. Nogales, Gustavo Figueiredo Araújo

In this work we aim to analyze the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt CHSH inequality strictly in the context of probability theory. In the course of assembling inequality we have to take care not to produce assumptions a priori, that is, physically or intuitively accepted suppositions. Of course, this does not mean that after these considerations, we put the adequate physical conditions suitable and generally accepted in these contexts. This allows us to clearly visualize the possibility of finding a greater inequality than that of CHSH in which it is included. This inequality does not contradict the CHSH inequality. This result is suported by using a robust computational simulation, showing the possibility for obtaining an inequality for quantum mechanics that is not violated and allows random hidden variables without any conflict with Bell's inequality.

arXiv:1805.11200May 28, 20181 citation