The algebraic derivation of the numerical limits of Bell inequalities in either three or four random variables is independent of the assumption of randomness. The limits of the inequalities follow as mathematical consequences of their created algebraic structures independently of application to random or deterministic variables. The inequalities should be called identity-inequalities. A final correlation re-uses data from the previous correlations and thus leads to the inequality limits. It generally has a different functional form from the previous correlations, whether derived as a counterfactual mathematical result, or in a way enabling comparison with experiment. These algebraic facts and their consequences are central to understanding the inequalities’ use, but have not been widely recognized. Logically consistent application of the inequalities to Bell experiments is challenging, given that the number of mathematically assumed random variables is greater than the number of physical variables produced per experimental realization. Given Bell’s rejection of the use of sequential, alternative paths, three experimental runs are here considered to enable acquisition of data to be rearranged for computation of statistical cross-correlations. Predicted quantum mechanical correlations then satisfy the inequality. Since mathematically inconsistent use is sufficient to cause inequality violation, the conclusion that violation implies the nonexistence of underlying variables in the entanglement process does not follow.
The algebraic derivation of the numerical limits of Bell inequalities in either three or four random variables is independent of the assumption of randomness. The limits of the inequalities follow as mathematical consequences of their created algebraic structures independently of application to random or deterministic variables. The inequalities should be called identity-inequalities. A final correlation re-uses data from the previous correlations and thus leads to the inequality limits. It generally has a different functional form from the previous correlations, whether derived as a counterfactual mathematical result, or in a way enabling comparison with experiment. These algebraic facts and their consequences are central to understanding the inequalities’ use, but have not been widely recognized. Logically consistent application of the inequalities to Bell experiments is challenging, given that the number of mathematically assumed random variables is greater than the number of physical variables produced per experimental realization. Given Bell’s rejection of the use of sequential, alternative paths, three experimental runs are here considered to enable acquisition of data to be rearranged for computation of statistical cross-correlations. Predicted quantum mechanical correlations then satisfy the inequality. Since mathematically inconsistent use is sufficient to cause inequality violation, the conclusion that violation implies the nonexistence of underlying variables in the entanglement process does not follow.
It is not generally known that the inequality that Bell derived using three random variables must be identically satisfied by any three corresponding data sets of ±1’s that are writable on paper. This surprising fact is not immediately obvious from Bell’s inequality derivation based on causal random variables, but follows immediately if the same mathematical operations are applied to finite data sets. For laboratory data, the inequality is identically satisfied as a fact of pure algebra, and its satisfaction is independent of whether the processes generating the data are local, non-local, deterministic, random, or nonsensical. It follows that if predicted correlations violate the inequality, they represent no three cross-correlated data sets that can exist, or can be generated from valid probability models. Reported data that violate the inequality consist of probabilistically independent data-pairs and are thus inconsistent with inequality derivation. In the case of random variables as Bell assumed, the correlations in the inequality may be expressed in terms of the probabilities that give rise to them. A new inequality is then produced: The Wigner inequality, that must be satisfied by quantum mechanical probabilities in the case of Bell experiments. If that were not the case, predicted quantum probabilities and correlations would be inconsistent with basic algebra.
The Bell theorem and inequality were derived as consequences of seemingly reasonable physical and statistical hypotheses. Bell’s assumptions were used to deduce cross-correlations of three spin measurements on two entangled particles neglecting non-commutation. The assumed correlation functions, later confirmed for certain quantum measurements, violate the Bell inequality. The present paper reviews a more general derivation of the Bell inequality showing that it is identically satisfied by finite data sets whether deterministic or random, after assuming merely that they exist. It is thereafter concerned with the consequences of this result for interpretations of the inequality that result in its violation. A primary finding is that correlation functions have differing forms due to quantum commutation, non-commutation, and conditions of measurement, and result in satisfaction of the Bell inequality used consistently with its derivation. A stochastic process having the same correlation function for all variable pairs is shown to be inconsistent with experimentally reported data. The logic of the three and four variable inequalities is shown to be similar. Finally the inequalities in probabilities are shown to follow from those in correlations with quantum mechanical results satisfying either when properly implemented.
It is not generally known, that the inequality that Bell derived using three random variables must be identically satisfied by any three corresponding data sets of plus and minus 1s that are writable on paper.This surprising fact is not immediately obvious from Bell's inequality derivation based on causal random variables, but follows immediately if the same mathematical operations are applied to finite data sets.For laboratory data, the inequality is identically satisfied as a fact of pure algebra, and its satisfaction is independent of whether the processes generating the data are local, nonlocal, deterministic, random, or nonsensical.It follows that if predicted correlations violate the inequality, they represent no three cross correlated data sets that experimentally exist or can be generated from valid probability models. Reported data that violate the inequality consist of probabilistically independent data pairs and are thus inconsistent with inequality derivation.In the case of random variables as Bell assumed, the correlations in the inequality may be expressed in terms of the probabilities that give rise to them.A new inequality results, the Wigner inequality that must be satisfied by quantum mechanical probabilities in the case of Bell experiments.If that were not the case, predicted quantum probabilities and correlations would be inconsistent with basic algebra.
The Bell inequality is derived under the assumption of three physical data sets, random or deterministic. The data sets represent a laboratory realization of the three probability based variables used by Bell. For physical data as can be written on paper, the derivation of the inequality results only from principles of algebra and is independent of assumptions of locality, hidden variables and even randomness. Cross correlations of thee data sets carried out as Bell correlated three random variables results in the same inequality that is identically satisfied even by deterministic data. However, to obtain three data sets on two particles destroyed by measurement, two experimental runs are required, followed by data matching to reduce four data sets to three. If quantum mechanical probabilities are used to describe the data frequencies, the Bell inequality is satisfied. The situation is analogous to performing two sets of coin flips to compare the effect of two different coin loadings on the probabilities for heads and tails.
The original Bell inequality was obtained in a statistical derivation assuming three mutually cross-correlated random variables (four in the later version). Given that observations destroy the particles, the physical realization of three variables from an experiment producing two particles per trial requires two separate trial runs. One assumed variable value (for particle 1) occurs at a fixed instrument setting in both trial runs while a second variable (for particle 2) occurs at alternative instrument settings in the two trial runs. Given that measurements on the two particles occurring in each trial are themselves correlated, measurements from independent realizations at mutually exclusive settings on particle 2 are conditionally independent, i.e., conditionally dependent on particle 1, through probability. This situation is realized from variables defined by Bell using entangled particle pairs. Two correlations have the form that Bell computed from entanglement, but a third correlation from conditionally independent measurements has a different form. When the correlations are computed using quantum probabilities, the Bell inequality is satisfied without recourse to assumptions of non-locality, or non-reality.
Bell's Inequalites structure can be considered in a logical-probabilistic framework, as outlined by Pitowsky [1], where the origin of the inequality was attributed to George Boole’s “conditions of possible experience”. The inequality has then been often renamed the Bell-Boole inequality. An interesting fact is that G. Boole’s method used to establish his probability inequalities stems directly from his mathematical treatment of logic using idempotent symbols (which he called “elective symbols”). The “Boolean Algebra” we consider today bears some major differences with Boole’s original method as thoroughly discussed by Hailperin [2].We proposed recently the “Eigenlogic” approach [3] where we translate Boole’s original logical method to linear algebra using idempotent and also unitary operators and outline the bridges to quantum theories in particular to quantum information [4]. Eigenlogic can thus be a framework for transposing logic in a quantum context, the probabilistic aspects are then simply derived by measurements on logical operators using the Born rule.Bell Inequalities (BI) can be expressed in an operator form where the measurement observables of an experiment are combined to form Bell operators, the outcomes are then derived by using the quantum mechanical mean value (again the Born rule). The popular form adapted for this method is the CHSH form of the BI for spin 1/2 particles or polarized photons with outcomes ±1. Using the isomorphism between idempotent and self-inverse unitary operators (Householder transform) the CHSH Bell operator transforms in Eigenlogic in a combination of idempotent operators from which by using the Born rule one gets the Fine inequality on probabilities.As stated by Khrennikov [5] the BI violation occurs only when incompatible (non-commuting) observables are used in the BI associated experiments. Particularly in the CHSH-BI experiments on an entangled state, mutually unbiased bases (MUB), representing maximally dissimilar contexts, lead to the maximum quantum violation represented by the number 2√2>2. This is the case for the couple of MUB (z,x) associated to Pauli spin operators σ_x and σ_z. In Eigenlogic these (z,x) contexts represent dual logical systems which are at interplay and have an original syntax-semantic interpretation [4]. It has to be outlined that in many quantum algorithms the MUB (z,x), linked by the Hadamard gate which represents the Fourier Transformation between the two bases, provides a quantum algorithmic advantage.The situations of the BI in the so called post-quantum regime are also analyzed by generalizing the concept of PR-Box which relates outputs (a,b) to inputs (x,y) in a two-party correlation by means of the logical equation: a⊕b=x∧y. Using Eigenlogic, families of boxes with all possible combinations of logical functions are analyzed through the equations: f(a,b)=g(x,y), where f and g correspond to the 16 different Boolean functions, giving 256 possible logical equations. The logical equations are transformed in logical operators and used to define the associated Bell operator. 16 cases of the PR-Box type (considering all the possible complementations of the variables a,b,x,y) violate the CHSH-BI maximally with the number 4>2√2 (Tsirelson’s bound). Another family of 32 logical cases gives a CHSH-BI violation of 3.33 also beyond the quantum limit; this is the case for the logical equation: a∨b=x∧y.[1] Pitowsky, I., George Boole’s ‘conditions of possible experience’ and the quantum puzzle. Brit. J. Phil. Sci., 45:95–125 (1994).[2] Hailperin, T. Boole’s Algebra isn’t Boolean algebra. A description using modern algebra, of what Boole really did create. Math. Mag. 54(4): 172–184 (1981).[3] Toffano, Z. Eigenlogic in the Spirit of George Boole. Log. Univers. 14, 175–207 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11787-020-00252-3[4] Toffano, Z.; Dubois, F. Adapting Logic to Physics: The Quantum-Like Eigenlogic Program. Entropy 2020, 22, 139. https://doi.org/10.3390/e22020139[5] Khrennikov, A. Contextuality, Complementarity, Signaling, and Bell Tests. Entropy 2022, 24, 1380. https://doi.org/10.3390/e24101380