Physical Review A

Comment on “Relevance of Bell’s theorem as a signature of nonlocality: Case of classical angular momentum distributions”

Ten Yong Tung

Published Apr 10, 2009• 1 citation

Abstract

We give some comments on the paper of Matzkin [Phys. Rev. A 77, 062110 (2008)]. It is argued here that, if the assumption of locality is properly taken into account, Matzkin's model cannot reproduce the quantum-mechanical correlations.

DOI: 10.1103/physreva.79.046101

Related papers

Reply to “Comment on ‘Relevance of Bell’s theorem as a signature of nonlocality: Case of classical angular momentum distributions’ ”

A. Matzkin

In this Reply, we show that the main argument of the criticism given in the preceding Comment is inconsistent with the assumption lying at the basis of the model introduced in the original paper [A. Matzkin, Phys. Rev. A 77, 062110 (2008)]. We further clarify some issues concerning the interplay between noncommuting measurements and conservation laws in order to reply to the additional criticism contained in the comment.

Physical Review AApr 10, 20090 citations

Relevance of Bell's theorem as a signature of nonlocality: Case of classical angular momentum distributions

A. Matzkin

For a system composed of two particles, Bell's theorem asserts that averages of physical quantities determined from local variables must conform to a family of inequalities. In this work we show that a classical model containing a local probabilistic interaction in the measurement process can lead to a violation of the Bell inequalities. We first introduce two-particle phase-space distributions in classical mechanics constructed to be the analogs of quantum-mechanical angular momentum eigenstates. These distributions are then employed in four schemes characterized by different types of detectors measuring the angular momenta. When the model includes an interaction between the detector and the measured particle leading to ensemble dependencies, the relevant Bell inequalities are violated if the total angular momentum is required to be conserved. The violation is explained by identifying assumptions made in the derivation of Bell's theorem that are not fulfilled by the model, in particular noncommutativity of single-particle measurements. We discuss to what extent a violation of these assumptions is a faithful marker of nonlocality.

arXiv:0709.2114Physical Review AJun 20, 20087 citations

Comment on “Loophole-Free Bell Test for Continuous Variables via Wave and Particle Correlations”

Daniel Cavalcanti, Valerio Scarani

The inequalities proposed in [Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 170404 (2010)] are not Bell's inequalities in the usual sense: there are local classical models that violate these inequalities. Thus, their violation demonstrates nonlocality only under assumptions about the physical implementation and moreover they cannot be used as a device-independent test of nonlocality.

arXiv:1010.5358Physical Review LettersMay 20, 20117 citations

Locality Is An Unnecessary Assumption of Bell's Theorem

H. Razmi, Mehdi Golshani

Without imposing the locality condition,it is shown that quantum mechanics cannot reproduce all the predictions of a special stochastic realistic model used in certain spin-correlation experiments.This shows that the so-called locality condition is an unnecessary assumption of Bell's theorem.

arXiv:quant-ph/9812029Dec 14, 19980 citations

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 eBooksAug 31, 201615 citations

Comment on "Nonlocality claims are inconsistent with Hilbert-space quantum mechanics"

Justo Pastor Lambare

The view exists that the Bell inequality is a mere inconsistent application of classical concepts to a well-established quantum world. In the article, ``Nonlocality claims are inconsistent with Hilbert-space quantum mechanics'' [Phys. Rev. A, 101, 022117, (2020)], Robert B. Griffiths advocates for quantum theory's locality. Although R. B. Griffiths presents valuable insights in favor of quantum mechanics' local character, he argues the Bell inequality is an inconsistent application of classical physics to quantum mechanics. We explain why a correct assessment of the Bell inequality does not in fact conflict with Griffiths's views of quantum locality and, on the contrary, it already contemplates them. Hence, Bell inequality inconsistency is not necessary for Griffiths's quantum locality to hold.

arXiv:2102.07524Feb 15, 20215 citations