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

American Journal of Physics

Quantum mysteries explored

Thomas F. Jordan

Published Oct 1, 1994• 13 citations
Publisher

Abstract

A bare-bones skeleton of quantum mechanics is used to do the calculations underlying both Mermin’s example of a Bell inequality and his example of the Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger discovery. An example of a recent discovery by Hardy also is discussed. It demonstrates the inconsistency between quantum mechanics and Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen assumptions in a way quite like that of Greenberger, Horne, and Zeilinger, without inequalities, but it requires only two particles with spin 1/2.

DOI
10.1119/1.17752

Related papers

Testing Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen assumptions without inequalities with two photons or particles with spin 1/2

Thomas F. Jordan

A recent discovery by Hardy [Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 1665 (1993)] is developed and extended. It shows that the inconsistency between quantum mechanics and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen assumptions about locality and reality can be demonstrated for two photons or particles with spin 1/2, as in experiments that test Bell inequalities, but without inequalities, as in what Greenberger, Horne, and Zeilinger discovered for three or four particles [in Bell's Theorem, Quantum Theory, and Conceptions of the Universe, edited by M. Kafatos (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1989), p. 74]. Here all the possibilities are found. The measurement choices can be different for the two particles. They are described directly in terms of angles for spin measurements. Hardy's result and its converse are both proved: almost any state will do (with measurement choices made to accommodate) and any choice of two different measurement possibilities for each particle will do (with a state made to accommodate). A simple example is given; it allows the calculations to be done quickly with Pauli matrices.

Physical Review A•Jul 1, 1994•49 citations

Bell inequalities and quantum mechanics

Joseph H. Eberly

We employ an arrangement of polarization analyzer loops to derive several simple Bell inequalities and then discuss the violation of one of them in light of quantum and classical interpretations of the data recorded.

American Journal of Physics•Mar 1, 2002•27 citations

The Bell Inequality and the Many-Worlds Interpretation

Lev Vaidman A

It is argued that the lesson we should learn from Bell's inequalities is not that quantum mechanics requires some kind of action at a distance, but that it leads us to believe in parallel worlds. Introduction Bell's work [1] led to a revolution in our understanding of nature. I remember attending my first physics conference, on “Microphysical Reality and Quantum Formalism,” in Urbino, 1985. Most of the talks were about Aspect's experiment [2] confirming the nonlocality of quantum mechanics based on experimental violations of Bell's inequalities. Although I did not share the skepticism of many speakers regarding the results of Aspect, I was not ready to accept that a local action in one place can instantaneously change anything at another place. So, while for the majority the lesson from Bell was that quantum mechanics requires some “spooky action at a distance”, I was led by Bell's result to an alternative revolutionary change in our view of nature. I saw no other way than accepting the manyworlds interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics [3, 4]. I shall start by presenting the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (EPR) [5] argument. Then I will present Bell's presented using the Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger setup [6] in the form proposed by Mermin [7, 8]. The discussion of nonlocality will suggest that Bell's inequalities are the only manifestation of action at a distance in nature. The demonstration of the necessity of action at a distance will be done through a detailed analysis of the GHZ experiment. Then I shall show how multiple worlds resolve the problem of action at a distance. After discussing the issue of nonlocality in the MWI, I shall conclude by citing Bell's views on the MWI. EPR–Bell–GHZ The story of Bell cannot be told without first describing the EPR argument. Instead of following the historical route, I shall use the GHZ setup, which, in my view, is the clearest way to explain the EPR and Bell's discovery.

arXiv:1501.02691•Cambridge University Press eBooks•Aug 31, 2016•13 citations

Bell’s Theorem Tells Us Not What Quantum Mechanics Is, but What Quantum Mechanics Is Not

Marek Żukowski

arXiv:1501.05640•The frontiers collection•Nov 14, 2016•5 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

General proof of the Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger theorem

Zeqian Chen

It is proved that all states of three spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ particles exhibiting an ``all versus nothing'' contradiction between quantum mechanics and the local realism of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen are exactly the Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (GHZ) states and the states obtained from them by local unitary transformations. The proof is obtained by showing that there are at most four elements (except for a different sign) in a set of mutually commuting nonlocal spin observables in the three-qubit system and using the certain algebraic properties that Pauli's matrices satisfy. We show that only does such a set of four nonlocal spin observables present a Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger-Mermin-like argument. This also reveals the equivalence between the GHZ theorem and maximal violation of the Bell inequality.

Physical Review A•Sep 24, 2004•1 citation
A bare-bones skeleton of quantum mechanics is used to do the calculations underlying both Mermin’s example of a Bell inequality and his example of the Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger discovery. An example of a recent discovery by Hardy also is discussed. It demonstrates the inconsistency between quantum mechanics and Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen assumptions in a way quite like that of Greenberger, Horne, and Zeilinger, without inequalities, but it requires only two particles with spin 1/2.
A recent discovery by Hardy [Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 1665 (1993)] is developed and extended. It shows that the inconsistency between quantum mechanics and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen assumptions about locality and reality can be demonstrated for two photons or particles with spin 1/2, as in experiments that test Bell inequalities, but without inequalities, as in what Greenberger, Horne, and Zeilinger discovered for three or four particles [in Bell's Theorem, Quantum Theory, and Conceptions of the Universe, edited by M. Kafatos (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1989), p. 74]. Here all the possibilities are found. The measurement choices can be different for the two particles. They are described directly in terms of angles for spin measurements. Hardy's result and its converse are both proved: almost any state will do (with measurement choices made to accommodate) and any choice of two different measurement possibilities for each particle will do (with a state made to accommodate). A simple example is given; it allows the calculations to be done quickly with Pauli matrices.
It is argued that the lesson we should learn from Bell's inequalities is not that quantum mechanics requires some kind of action at a distance, but that it leads us to believe in parallel worlds. Introduction Bell's work [1] led to a revolution in our understanding of nature. I remember attending my first physics conference, on “Microphysical Reality and Quantum Formalism,” in Urbino, 1985. Most of the talks were about Aspect's experiment [2] confirming the nonlocality of quantum mechanics based on experimental violations of Bell's inequalities. Although I did not share the skepticism of many speakers regarding the results of Aspect, I was not ready to accept that a local action in one place can instantaneously change anything at another place. So, while for the majority the lesson from Bell was that quantum mechanics requires some “spooky action at a distance”, I was led by Bell's result to an alternative revolutionary change in our view of nature. I saw no other way than accepting the manyworlds interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics [3, 4]. I shall start by presenting the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (EPR) [5] argument. Then I will present Bell's presented using the Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger setup [6] in the form proposed by Mermin [7, 8]. The discussion of nonlocality will suggest that Bell's inequalities are the only manifestation of action at a distance in nature. The demonstration of the necessity of action at a distance will be done through a detailed analysis of the GHZ experiment. Then I shall show how multiple worlds resolve the problem of action at a distance. After discussing the issue of nonlocality in the MWI, I shall conclude by citing Bell's views on the MWI. EPR–Bell–GHZ The story of Bell cannot be told without first describing the EPR argument. Instead of following the historical route, I shall use the GHZ setup, which, in my view, is the clearest way to explain the EPR and Bell's discovery.
It is proved that all states of three spin-12\frac{1}{2}21​ particles exhibiting an ``all versus nothing'' contradiction between quantum mechanics and the local realism of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen are exactly the Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (GHZ) states and the states obtained from them by local unitary transformations. The proof is obtained by showing that there are at most four elements (except for a different sign) in a set of mutually commuting nonlocal spin observables in the three-qubit system and using the certain algebraic properties that Pauli's matrices satisfy. We show that only does such a set of four nonlocal spin observables present a Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger-Mermin-like argument. This also reveals the equivalence between the GHZ theorem and maximal violation of the Bell inequality.