We analyze a possible loophole to the conclusion of the Bell-KS theorem that quantum mechanics is not compatible with any realistic and noncontextual or local theory. We emphasize that the models discarded by Bell-KS-like arguments possess a property not shared by quantum mechanics, i.e. the capability to make non-trivial statements about the joint statistics of quantum incompatible observables. By ruling out this possibility, apparently nothing seems to prevent from a realistic, noncontextual or local view of quantum mechanics.
We analyze a possible loophole to the conclusion of the Bell-KS theorem that quantum mechanics is not compatible with any realistic and noncontextual or local theory. We emphasize that the models discarded by Bell-KS-like arguments possess a property not shared by quantum mechanics, i.e. the capability to make non-trivial statements about the joint statistics of quantum incompatible observables. By ruling out this possibility, apparently nothing seems to prevent from a realistic, noncontextual or local view of quantum mechanics.
Bell's theorem is a statement by which averages obtained from specific types of statistical distributions must conform to a family of inequalities. These models, in accordance with the EPR argument, provide for the simultaneous existence of quantum mechanically incompatible quantities. We first recall several contradictions arising between the assumption of a joint distribution for incompatible observables and the probability structure of quantum-mechanics, and conclude that Bell's theorem is not expected to be relevant to quantum phenomena described by non-commuting observables, irrespective of the issue of locality. Then, we try to disentangle the locality issue from the existence of joint distributions by introducing two models accounting for the EPR correlations but denying the existence of joint distributions. We will see that these models do not need to resort explicitly to non-locality: the first model relies on conservation laws for ensembles, and the second model on an equivalence class by which different configurations lead to the same physical predictions.
Bell's theorem proves the incompatibility between quantum mechanics and local realistic hidden-variable theories. In this paper we show that, contrary to a common belief, the theoretical proof of Bell's theorem is not affected by counterfactual reasoning. Then, we demonstrate that the experimental verification of this theorem may be affected in an unknowable way by our ignorance about the probability distribution of the hidden variables. Our study is based on the standard theory of random variables, and lays the groundwork for a critical rethinking of Bell's theorem and its consequences.
Abstract. Bell’s theorem is a statement by which averages obtained from specific types of statistical distributions must conform to a family of inequalities. These models, in accordance with the EPR argument, provide for the simultaneous existence of quantum mechanically incompatible quantities. We first recall several contradictions arising between the assumption of a joint distribution for incompatible observables and the probability structure of quantum-mechanics, and conclude that Bell’s theorem is not expected to be relevant to quantum phenomena described by non-commuting observables, irrespective of the issue of locality. Then, we try to disentangle the locality issue from the existence of joint distributions by introducing two models accounting for the EPR correlations but denying the existence of joint distributions. We will see that these models do not need to resort explicitly to non-locality: the first model relies on conservation laws for ensembles, and the second model on an equivalence class by which different configurations lead to the same physical predictions. Keywords: Quantum mechanics, Non-locality, Bell inequalities
Bell's theorem is a statement by which averages obtained from specific types of statistical distributions must conform to a family of inequalities. These models, in accordance with the EPR argument, provide for the simultaneous existence of quantum mechanically incompatible quantities. We first recall several contradictions arising between the assumption of a joint distribution for incompatible observables and the probability structure of quantum-mechanics, and conclude that Bell's theorem is not expected to be relevant to quantum phenomena described by non-commuting observables, irrespective of the issue of locality. Then, we try to disentangle the locality issue from the existence of joint distributions by introducing two models accounting for the EPR correlations but denying the existence of joint distributions. We will see that these models do not need to resort explicitly to non-locality: the first model relies on conservation laws for ensembles, and the second model on an equivalence class by which different configurations lead to the same physical predictions.
Quantum mechanics provides a statistical description about nature, and thus would be incomplete if its statistical predictions could not be accounted for by some realistic models with hidden variables. There are, however, two powerful theorems against the hidden-variable theories showing that certain quantum features cannot be reproduced based on two rationale premises of locality, Bell's theorem, and noncontextuality, due to Bell, Kochen and Specker (BKS). Noncontextuality is independent of nonlocality, and the contextuality manifests itself even in a single object. Here we report an experimental verification of quantum contextuality by a single spin-1 electron system at room temperature. Such a three-level system is indivisible and then we close the compatibility loophole which exists in the experiments performed on bipartite systems. Our results confirm the quantum contextuality to be the intrinsic property of single particles.
It may well be that a relativistic version of the theory, while Lorentz invariant and local at the observational level, may be necessarily non-local and with a preferred frame (or aether) at the fundamental level. – John Bell [1] Introduction Bell's theorem establishes a contradiction between locality (and a few other assumptions) and certain predictions of quantum mechanics [2]. There have been two main issues surrounding the deep implications of this celebrated theorem. The first issue is basic, and it concerns whether the theorem really establishes that nonlocality is a necessary feature of any empirically viable theory and hence a feature of nature itself. One aspect of the issue concerns exactly what the underlying assumptions of Bell's theorem are. For example, some argue that these assumptions include the assumption of counterfactual definiteness [3–5], while others disagree [6–8]. The other aspect of the issue concerns which assumption should be dropped due to the resulting contradiction. Some believe that standard quantum mechanics may avoid nonlocality by denying counterfactual definiteness [3–5]. The second issue is much deeper, and it concerns how to make sense of the strange nonlocality when assuming that Bell's theorem establishes that our world is nonlocal. In particular, it has yet to be determined whether such quantum nonlocality is compatible with the theory of relativity, e.g., whether the nonlocality requires the existence of a preferred Lorentz frame [7, 9, 10]. It seems that “there is a preferred frame of reference, and in this preferred frame of reference things do go faster than light … Behind the apparent Lorentz invariance of the phenomena, there is a deeper level which is not Lorentz invariant” [11]. But it also seems possible that the existence of a preferred Lorentz frame is an illusion, since it cannot be detected according to standard quantum mechanics. A more subtle issue is whether quantum nonlocality permits superluminal signaling. It is widely thought that the answers to these questions will lead to a deeper understanding of Bell's theorem and quantum nonlocality. In this paper, we will present a new analysis of quantum nonlocality and its apparent incompatibility with relativity.