We clarify the meaning of Bell's theorem and its implications for the construction of hidden variable theories by considering an example system consisting of two entangled spin-1/2 particles. Using this example, we present a simplified version of Bell's theorem and describe several hidden variable theories that agree with the predictions of quantum mechanics. These example theories clarify some subtle points, which are often misunderstood, regarding what it is that Bell's theorem actually establishes. \n
We clarify the meaning of Bell's theorem and its implications for the construction of hidden variable theories by considering an example system consisting of two entangled spin-1/2 particles. Using this example, we present a simplified version of Bell's theorem and describe several hidden variable theories that agree with the predictions of quantum mechanics. These example theories clarify some subtle points, which are often misunderstood, regarding what it is that Bell's theorem actually establishes. \n
Bell's Theorem witnesses that the predictions of quantum theory cannot be reproduced by theories of local hidden variables in which observers can choose their measurements independently of the source. Working out an idea of Branciard, Rosset, Gisin and Pironio, we consider scenarios which feature several sources, but no choice of measurement for the observers. Every Bell scenario can be mapped into such a \emph{correlation scenario}, and Bell's Theorem then discards those local hidden variable theories in which the sources are independent. However, most correlation scenarios do not arise from Bell scenarios, and we describe examples of (quantum) nonlocality in some of these scenarios, while posing many open problems along the way. Some of our scenarios have been considered before by mathematicians in the context of causal inference.
Though John Bell had claimed that his spin-1/2 example of a hidden-variable theory(HV) is an \emph{explicit} counterexample to von Neumann's proof of the non-existence of hidden variable theories empirically equivalent to quantum mechanics, such examples can be so construed only if they met all of von Neumann's requirements. In particular, that they reproduced all the observed predictions of quantum theory. To shed light on these aspects, we have, on the one hand, simplified and critically examined Bell's original example and on the other hand, constructed explicit such examples for spin-1 systems. We have clarified the relation of our example to the Kochen-Specker and Bell's powerful earlier results. Our spin-1 examples are manifestly non-contextual, yet violating the K-S constraints configuration by configuration. Nevertheless, they reproduce the correct quantum expectation values and variances for arbitrary linear combinations of the beables in one case, and for close approximants to the beables representing K-S constraints. In conformity with the K-S theorem, the variance of the K-S constraint is nonzero. The implications of this non-vanishing variance are analysed in detail. In the other example, we show how this variance can be made arbitrarily small but not zero.
Bell's theorem rests on the following fundamental condition for a local system: P(a,b|alpha, beta, lambda)= P(a|alpha, lambda)P(b|beta, lambda). Here a and b are the outcomes respectively for measurements alpha on one side, and beta on the other, of an experiment involving two entangled particles traveling in opposite directions from a source. The parameter lambda (the set of "hidden variables") represents a more complete description of the joint state of the two particles. Because of lambda, the joint probability of detection is now dependent only on lambda and the local measurement setting of alpha; similarly for the other side and the setting beta. From this equation John Bell derived a simple inequality that is violated by the predictions of quantum mechanics, which is generally taken to imply that quantum mechanics is a nonlocal theory. But, by combining Richard Feynman's formulation of quantum mechanics with a model of particle interaction described by David Deutsch, we develop a system (the "space of all paths," SP) that (1) is immediately seen to replicate the predictions of quantum mechanics, (2) has a single outcome for each quantum event (unlike MWI on which it is partly based), and (3) contains the set lambda of hidden variables consisting of all possible paths from the source to the detectors on each side of the two-particle experiment. However, the set lambda is nonmeasurable, and therefore the above equation is meaningless in SP.
It is proved that Bell's inequality can be traced back to a classical probabilistic formula that is invalid clearly, while the spin correlation formula in quantum mechanics to a formula that has confirmed both by facts and quantum mechanics. Two misunderstandings about Bell's theorem are pointed out: Firstly, the hidden variable theory Bell's used is a special one, but it is regarded as a general form of such theories. Secondly, there are two outcomes obtainable from Bell's hypotheses: one is compatible with quantum mechanics and the other leads to Bell's inequality. Unfortunately, the former is regarded as a property of local hidden variable theory, while the latter as self-evident. G. Lochak has revealed the first misunderstanding, and thereby he pointed out that Bell's inequality has nothing to do with locality, but he did not find the second one, so that he still analyzed this problem starting from hidden variable theory, which is actually irrelative to Bell's inequality. (The Journal of American Science. 2005;1(2):42-50).
Abstract. For unit vectors a, b, entanglement requires that spin measurements satisfy those just given for a≠b. Bell’s hidden variable quantum mechanical local particle with a=b cannot provide the values for a≠b and, hence, the values for an entangled particle system. The perception that any hidden variable quantum mechanical description of an entangled system of particles is non-local depends on Bell’s inappropriate definition of locality, which excludes entanglement for a distant particle, and the condition that a=b, which does not give the values for a≠b as required to give the quantum mechanical expectation values, when entanglement occurs for systems that are close, not distant, and ignores that entanglement is a local phenomenon. Expecting the condition a=b and a local particle analysis with no distant entangled particle to give the quantum mechanical result is absurd. Any disentanglement of once entangled particles moving apart sets the spin measurements at those given for a≠b if a≠b and those given for a=b if a=b. Any subsequent measurement of the set values agrees with those for a≠b if a≠b and those given for a=b if a=b just as if the particles are entangled still. In examples where Bell’s inequality is supposedly violated, the conditions for which the inequality is true are not met. There is no contradiction.
Abstract We will first define what is meant by “hidden variables”. Then, we will review theorems proving the impossibility of theories introducing such variables in a naive way. Next, we will outline the de Broglie-Bohm theory and show that it is not refuted by those theorems. To do that, we will explain how “measurements” work in that theory, using the examples of spin measurements and of momentum measurements. Those measurements do not reveal pre-existing properties of the quantum particle but are the result of interactions between that particle and the measuring apparatus. And this is why the de Broglie-Bohm theory is not refuted by the theorems on the impossibility of hidden variables. We will also explain the relationship between the no “hidden variables” theorems and nonlocality, with and without introducing Bell’s inequalities.