Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Cambridge University Press eBooks

Locality and the Hardy theorem

Arthur I. Fine

Published Dec 28, 1999• 3 citations
Publisher

Abstract

But this conclusion [nonlocality] needs careful discussion in order to clarify what is going on . (Redhead 1987, p. 3) Within the foundations of physics in recent years, Bell's theorem has played the role of what Thomas Kuhn calls a ‘paradigm’: that is, an exemplary piece of work that others learn from, imitate and develop. Following a period of articulation and consolidation, the first generation of developments of the Bell theorem was initiated by Heywood and Redhead (1983). They produced a nonlocality result in the algebraic style of the Bell–Kochen–Specker theorem (Bell 1966; Kochen and Specker 1967), moving away from the probabilistic relations characteristic of the Bell theorems proper. More recently a second generation develops results by Peres (1990), Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger (1990), and Hardy (1993). In addition to moving away from probabilities, this generation tries to dispense with the limiting inequalities of the Bell theorem to yield socalled ‘Bell theorems without inequalities’. With respect to probabilities, however, Hardy is a half-way house. It requires no inequalities but the result contradicts quantum mechanics under certain locality assumptions only if the statistical predictions of quantum mechanics hold in at least one case. I want to examine the Hardy theorem and its interpretation. Initially, I intend to ignore respects in which it dispenses with probabilities because I want to point out the interesting significance of the theorem in a probabilistic context. We will see that when probabilities are restored, so are inequalities. Then we will see what the theorem has to contribute on the topic of locality.

DOI
10.1017/cbo9780511597947.003

Related papers

The Hardy’s nonlocality argument

Sujit K Choudhary, Pankaj Agrawal

Certain predictions of quantum theory are not compatible with the notion of local-realism. This was the content of Bell’s famous theorem of the year 1964. Bell proved this with the help of an inequality, famously known as Bell’s inequality. The alternative proofs of Bell’s theorem without using Bell’s inequality are known as “nonlocality without inequality (NLWI)” proofs. We review one such proof namely the Hardy’s proof which due to its simplicity and generality has been considered the best version of Bell’s theorem.

arXiv:1610.01152•International Journal of Quantum Information•Aug 19, 2016•1 citation

Lessons of Bell's Theorem: Nonlocality, Yes; Action at a Distance, Not Necessarily

Wayne C. Myrvold

Introduction Fifty years after the publication of Bell's theorem, there remains some controversy regarding what the theorem is telling us about quantum mechanics, and what the experimental violations of Bell inequalities are telling us about the world. This chapter represents my best attempt to be clear about what I think the lessons are. In brief: There is some sort of nonlocality inherent in any quantum theory, and, moreover, in any theory that reproduces, even approximately, the quantum probabilities for the outcomes of experiments. But not all forms of nonlocality are the same; there is a distinction to be made between action at a distance and other forms of nonlocality, and I will argue that the nonlocality needed to violate the Bell inequalities need not involve action at a distance. Furthermore, the distinction between forms of nonlocality makes a difference when it comes to compatibility with relativistic causal structure. The Bell locality condition is a condition which, if satisfied, renders possible a completely local account of the correlations between outcomes of spatially separated experiments. Bell's theorem tells us that the probabilities that we compute from quantum mechanics do not admit of such an account. Modulo auxiliary assumptions that, in my opinion, should be noncontroversial, this yields the conclusion that there must be something nonlocal about any theory that yields the quantum mechanical probabilities or anything close to them. One way to violate the Bell locality condition – and this is the way that any deterministic theory must do it – is via straightforward action at a distance. However, we should also consider the possibility of a stochastic theorywith probabilistic laws that involve irreducible correlations. The sort of nonlocality inherent in such a theory involves relations between events that are significantly different from causal relations as usually conceived. Perhaps surprisingly, such a theory, unlike its deterministic cousins, need not invoke a distinguished relation of distant simultaneity. This makes a difference for the situation of the two sorts of theories vis-a-vis relativity. Though a deterministic theory can achieve the appearance of being relativistic, at the level of observable phenomena, it can do so only by introducing a preferred foliation and with it a causal structure at odds with relativistic causal structures. Things are otherwise with dynamical collapse theories.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Aug 31, 2016•15 citations

Bell's theorem and beyond

Mark S. Hillery, Bernard Yurke

The authors survey what is known about correlations in physical systems. Bell (1964-6) found that locally realistic theories are limited in the types of correlations which they allow. The more recent results of Greenberger, Horne and Zeilinger (1992) and of Hardy (1989) have shown that local realism imposes even stronger restrictions than those found by Bell. It is less well known that quantum mechanics is also limited in the kinds of correlations it can produce. This was first discovered by Tsirelson (1980). The authors discuss Tsirelson's results and related work by Landau (1987). They conclude by presenting further conditions which quantum mechanical correlations must satisfy.

Quantum and Semiclassical Optics Journal of the European Optical Society Part B•Jun 1, 1995•19 citations

Hidden Variables and Nonlocality in Quantum Mechanics

Douglas L. Hemmick

In this paper, we show that Erwin Schroedinger's generalization of the Einstein Podolsky Rosen argument can be connected to certain mathematical theorems - Gleason's and also Kochen and Specker's - in a manner analogous to the relation of EPR itself with Bell's theorem. In both cases, the conclusion is quantum nonlocality, as we discuss. The "Schroedinger nonlocality" proofs share some features with the Greenberger, Horne, and Zeilinger quantum-nonlocality work, yet also differ in significant ways. For clarity and completeness, we begin with a detailed discussion of the topic of hidden variable theorems. We argue, in agreement with John S. Bell, that 'impossibility' does not follow.

arXiv:quant-ph/0412011•Dec 2, 2004•13 citations

On the failure of Bell's theorem

Gyula Bene

Using a new approach to quantum mechanics we revisit Hardy's proof for Bell's theorem and point out a loophole in it. We also demonstrate on this example that quantum mechanics is a local realistic theory.

arXiv:quant-ph/9706054•Jun 24, 1997•0 citations

The Sheaf-Theoretic Structure Of Non-Locality and Contextuality

Samson Abramsky, Adam M. Brandenburger

Locality and non-contextuality are intuitively appealing features of classical physics, which are contradicted by quantum mechanics. The goal of the classic no-go theorems by Bell, Kochen-Specker, et al. is to show that non-locality and contextuality are necessary features of any theory whose predictions agree with those of quantum mechanics. We use the mathematics of sheaf theory to analyze the structure of non-locality and contextuality in a very general setting. Starting from a simple experimental scenario, and the kind of probabilistic models familiar from discussions of Bell’s theorem, we show that there is a very direct, compelling formalization of these notions in sheaf-theoretic terms. Moreover, on the basis of this formulation, we show that the phenomena of non-locality and contextuality can be characterized precisely in terms of obstructions to the existence of global sections. We give linear algebraic methods for computing these obstructions, and use these methods to obtain a number of new insights into non-locality and contextuality. For example, we distinguish a proper hierarchy of strengths of no-go theorems, and show that three leading examples — due to Bell, Hardy, and Greenberger, Horne and Zeilinger, respectively — occupy successively higher levels of this hierarchy. We show how our abstract setting can be represented in quantum mechanics. In doing so, we uncover a strengthening of the usual no-signalling theorem, which shows that quantum mechanics obeys no-signalling for arbitrary families of commuting observables, not just those represented on different factors of a tensor product.

•Jan 1, 2011•283 citations
But this conclusion [nonlocality] needs careful discussion in order to clarify what is going on . (Redhead 1987, p. 3) Within the foundations of physics in recent years, Bell's theorem has played the role of what Thomas Kuhn calls a ‘paradigm’: that is, an exemplary piece of work that others learn from, imitate and develop. Following a period of articulation and consolidation, the first generation of developments of the Bell theorem was initiated by Heywood and Redhead (1983). They produced a nonlocality result in the algebraic style of the Bell–Kochen–Specker theorem (Bell 1966; Kochen and Specker 1967), moving away from the probabilistic relations characteristic of the Bell theorems proper. More recently a second generation develops results by Peres (1990), Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger (1990), and Hardy (1993). In addition to moving away from probabilities, this generation tries to dispense with the limiting inequalities of the Bell theorem to yield socalled ‘Bell theorems without inequalities’. With respect to probabilities, however, Hardy is a half-way house. It requires no inequalities but the result contradicts quantum mechanics under certain locality assumptions only if the statistical predictions of quantum mechanics hold in at least one case. I want to examine the Hardy theorem and its interpretation. Initially, I intend to ignore respects in which it dispenses with probabilities because I want to point out the interesting significance of the theorem in a probabilistic context. We will see that when probabilities are restored, so are inequalities. Then we will see what the theorem has to contribute on the topic of locality.
Certain predictions of quantum theory are not compatible with the notion of local-realism. This was the content of Bell’s famous theorem of the year 1964. Bell proved this with the help of an inequality, famously known as Bell’s inequality. The alternative proofs of Bell’s theorem without using Bell’s inequality are known as “nonlocality without inequality (NLWI)” proofs. We review one such proof namely the Hardy’s proof which due to its simplicity and generality has been considered the best version of Bell’s theorem.
Introduction Fifty years after the publication of Bell's theorem, there remains some controversy regarding what the theorem is telling us about quantum mechanics, and what the experimental violations of Bell inequalities are telling us about the world. This chapter represents my best attempt to be clear about what I think the lessons are. In brief: There is some sort of nonlocality inherent in any quantum theory, and, moreover, in any theory that reproduces, even approximately, the quantum probabilities for the outcomes of experiments. But not all forms of nonlocality are the same; there is a distinction to be made between action at a distance and other forms of nonlocality, and I will argue that the nonlocality needed to violate the Bell inequalities need not involve action at a distance. Furthermore, the distinction between forms of nonlocality makes a difference when it comes to compatibility with relativistic causal structure. The Bell locality condition is a condition which, if satisfied, renders possible a completely local account of the correlations between outcomes of spatially separated experiments. Bell's theorem tells us that the probabilities that we compute from quantum mechanics do not admit of such an account. Modulo auxiliary assumptions that, in my opinion, should be noncontroversial, this yields the conclusion that there must be something nonlocal about any theory that yields the quantum mechanical probabilities or anything close to them. One way to violate the Bell locality condition – and this is the way that any deterministic theory must do it – is via straightforward action at a distance. However, we should also consider the possibility of a stochastic theorywith probabilistic laws that involve irreducible correlations. The sort of nonlocality inherent in such a theory involves relations between events that are significantly different from causal relations as usually conceived. Perhaps surprisingly, such a theory, unlike its deterministic cousins, need not invoke a distinguished relation of distant simultaneity. This makes a difference for the situation of the two sorts of theories vis-a-vis relativity. Though a deterministic theory can achieve the appearance of being relativistic, at the level of observable phenomena, it can do so only by introducing a preferred foliation and with it a causal structure at odds with relativistic causal structures. Things are otherwise with dynamical collapse theories.
The authors survey what is known about correlations in physical systems. Bell (1964-6) found that locally realistic theories are limited in the types of correlations which they allow. The more recent results of Greenberger, Horne and Zeilinger (1992) and of Hardy (1989) have shown that local realism imposes even stronger restrictions than those found by Bell. It is less well known that quantum mechanics is also limited in the kinds of correlations it can produce. This was first discovered by Tsirelson (1980). The authors discuss Tsirelson's results and related work by Landau (1987). They conclude by presenting further conditions which quantum mechanical correlations must satisfy.
In this paper, we show that Erwin Schroedinger's generalization of the Einstein Podolsky Rosen argument can be connected to certain mathematical theorems - Gleason's and also Kochen and Specker's - in a manner analogous to the relation of EPR itself with Bell's theorem. In both cases, the conclusion is quantum nonlocality, as we discuss. The "Schroedinger nonlocality" proofs share some features with the Greenberger, Horne, and Zeilinger quantum-nonlocality work, yet also differ in significant ways. For clarity and completeness, we begin with a detailed discussion of the topic of hidden variable theorems. We argue, in agreement with John S. Bell, that 'impossibility' does not follow.
Locality and non-contextuality are intuitively appealing features of classical physics, which are contradicted by quantum mechanics. The goal of the classic no-go theorems by Bell, Kochen-Specker, et al. is to show that non-locality and contextuality are necessary features of any theory whose predictions agree with those of quantum mechanics. We use the mathematics of sheaf theory to analyze the structure of non-locality and contextuality in a very general setting. Starting from a simple experimental scenario, and the kind of probabilistic models familiar from discussions of Bell’s theorem, we show that there is a very direct, compelling formalization of these notions in sheaf-theoretic terms. Moreover, on the basis of this formulation, we show that the phenomena of non-locality and contextuality can be characterized precisely in terms of obstructions to the existence of global sections. We give linear algebraic methods for computing these obstructions, and use these methods to obtain a number of new insights into non-locality and contextuality. For example, we distinguish a proper hierarchy of strengths of no-go theorems, and show that three leading examples — due to Bell, Hardy, and Greenberger, Horne and Zeilinger, respectively — occupy successively higher levels of this hierarchy. We show how our abstract setting can be represented in quantum mechanics. In doing so, we uncover a strengthening of the usual no-signalling theorem, which shows that quantum mechanics obeys no-signalling for arbitrary families of commuting observables, not just those represented on different factors of a tensor product.