Abstract The well known Bell experiment with two actors Alice and Bob is considered. First the simple deduction leading to the CHSH inequality under local realism is reviewed, and some arguments from the literature are recapitulated. Then I take up certain background themes before I enter a discussion of Alice’s analysis of the situation. An important point is that her mind is limited by the fact that her Hilbert space in this context is two-dimensional. General statements about a mind’s limitation during a decision process are derived from recent results on the reconstruction of quantum theory from conceptual variables. These results apply to any decision situation. Let all the data from the Bell experiment be handed over to a new actor Charlie, who performs a data analysis. But his mind is also limited: He has a four-dimensional Hilbert space in the context determined by the experiment. I show that this implies that neither Alice nor Charlie can have the argument leading to the CHSH inequality as a background for making decisions related to the experiment. Charlie may be any data analyst, and he may communicate with any person. It is argued that no rational person can be convinced by the CHSH argument when making empirical decisions on the Bell situation.
Abstract The well known Bell experiment with two actors Alice and Bob is considered. First the simple deduction leading to the CHSH inequality under local realism is reviewed, and some arguments from the literature are recapitulated. Then I take up certain background themes before I enter a discussion of Alice’s analysis of the situation. An important point is that her mind is limited by the fact that her Hilbert space in this context is two-dimensional. General statements about a mind’s limitation during a decision process are derived from recent results on the reconstruction of quantum theory from conceptual variables. These results apply to any decision situation. Let all the data from the Bell experiment be handed over to a new actor Charlie, who performs a data analysis. But his mind is also limited: He has a four-dimensional Hilbert space in the context determined by the experiment. I show that this implies that neither Alice nor Charlie can have the argument leading to the CHSH inequality as a background for making decisions related to the experiment. Charlie may be any data analyst, and he may communicate with any person. It is argued that no rational person can be convinced by the CHSH argument when making empirical decisions on the Bell situation.
The Nobel prize in physics for 2022 was given for performing Bell experiments with varying degree of sophistication. The interpretation of this experiment is discussed by first recalling Bell's simple argument behind his inequalities, in particular the CHSH inequality. It is argued that any independent observer must have a limitation: He is not able to keep all relevant variables in his mind at the same time when trying to model the experiment. This is contrasted to the solution proposed by Tim Maudlin, where nonlocality is crucial.Maudlin criticizes the Nobel price committee, but this critique is countered. Finally, a related new approach to the foundation of quantum mechanics is briefly sketched, giving references to the relevant literature.
A number of papers have suggested that it is inappropriate to combine data from different experiments when undertaking experimental tests of Bell's inequalities. It has been suggested that a correct analysis, using a single probability space, leads to inequalities which are not violated by experiment. If correct, this would be contrary to the normal interpretation of such experimental data. However, in this note, a generalised Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) inequality is derived for a system of four experiments constructed on a single probability space which combines the data from the four experiments. It is shown that this leads to the standard CHSH inequality which is normally used to interpret experimental data. Thus the commonly accepted conclusion that experimental violations of Bell's inequality imply that local realistic models are inconsistent with the predictions of quantum mechanics has not been challenged.
Bell's theorem states that no description of a Bell experiment can be simultaneously local, realistic in the sense of counterfactual definiteness, and free of conspiracy between settings and hidden state. The recent generation of experiments has confirmed the predicted violation of the CHSH inequality, so one of the assumptions must be abandoned. Which one, and how one reconstructs a coherent worldview after doing so, is a question on which many authors disagree. This paper is written by three such authors. All three reject both counterfactual definiteness and conspiratorial violation of statistical independence of setting choices and state. After a joint exposition of the classical half of Bell's theorem in the language of Pearl-style causal graphs, a joint summary of the loophole-free experiments, and a joint survey of the recent literature, each author states where they have presently arrived. Gill accepts irreducible and non-local quantum randomness and finds the choice between locality and realism a false dichotomy. In his later works, Bell derives counterfactual definiteness from classical local causality, and that is what has to go. The metaphysical concepts "realism", "locality", "causality" need to be reconsidered. Helland reconstructs the Hilbert-space formalism from a theory of accessible variables, and from this theory he concludes that every observer must be limited in a specific sense. Jongejan proposes a geometric hidden-variable construction in which the degree of violation of the CHSH inequality depends on the number of dimensions of space, Tsirelson's bound corresponding to three dimensions. The authors conclude with a discussion.
Bell inequalities are usually derived by assuming locality and realism, and therefore experimental violations of Bell inequalities are usually taken to imply violations of either locality or realism, or both.But, after reviewing an oversight by Bell, here we derive the Bell-CHSH inequality by assuming only that Bob can measure along the directions b and b ′ simultaneously while Alice measures along either a or a ′ , and likewise Alice can measure along the directions a and a ′ simultaneously while Bob measures along either b or b ′ , without assuming locality.The observed violations of the Bell-CHSH inequality therefore simply verify the manifest impossibility of measuring along the directions b and b ′ (or along the directions a and a ′ ) simultaneously, in any realizable EPR-Bohm type experiment.
While it is widely agreed that Bell's theorem is an important result in the foundations of quantum physics, there is much disagreement about what exactly Bell's theorem shows. It is agreed that Bell derived a contradiction with experimental facts from some list of assumptions, thus showing that at least one of the assumptions must be wrong; but there is disagreement about what the assumptions were that went into the argument. In this paper, I make a few points in order to help clarify the situation. Introduction Different authors have expressed very different views about what Bell's theorem shows about physics. The disagreement concerns particularly the question of which assumptions go into the argument. Since we have to give up one of the assumptions leading to the empirically violated Bell inequality, knowing what the assumptions were is crucial. For example, if author X believes that the argument requires only one assumption, A 1 , while author Y believes that it requires two, A 1 and A 2 , then X will conclude that A 1 ¬ must be abandoned, while Y will conclude that either A 1 or A 2 must abandoned, so A 1 may well be true in our world if A 2 is false. In this paper, I consider several assumptions that have been mentioned in connection with Bell's theorem, and I look into their roles in the proof of Bell's theorem. While I do not say anything here that has never been said before, I hope that my remarks can nevertheless be helpful to some readers. For the sake of definiteness, the version of the relevant experiment that I will consider involves two spin-1\2 particles, initially in the singlet spin state ψ = 2 −1/2 (|↑↓ ⟩ − |↓↑ ⟩). Two widely separated experimenters, Alice and Bob, have one particle transported to each of them. At spacelike separation, they each choose a direction in space, represented by the unit vectors a and b , and carry out a quantum measurement of the spin observable in this direction on their particle, ( a · σ ) ⊗ I and I ⊗ ( b · σ ), with I the 2 × 2 unit matrix and σ the triple of Paulimatrices. The possible outcomes, A and B , are±1 on each side. Bell's theorem is the statement that under the assumptions we are about to discuss, Bell's inequality holds; quantum theory predicts violations of Bell's inequality, and experiments have confirmed these predictions.