We discuss whether local realism has been experimentally refuted in mechanics quantum as usual, or not. By local realism is meant a theory which accepts a detailed description in space-time and contains only interactions local. The method used to perform the verification has been the theorem of Bell, which is introduced and discussed. It is concluded that what has been tested are certain non-local properties of quantum mechanics and not local realism. It is mentioned a mechanism that has been suggested in the literature, capable of allowing recovery of determinism and locality in quantum systems
We discuss whether local realism has been experimentally refuted in mechanics quantum as usual, or not. By local realism is meant a theory which accepts a detailed description in space-time and contains only interactions local. The method used to perform the verification has been the theorem of Bell, which is introduced and discussed. It is concluded that what has been tested are certain non-local properties of quantum mechanics and not local realism. It is mentioned a mechanism that has been suggested in the literature, capable of allowing recovery of determinism and locality in quantum systems
It is currently widely accepted, as a result of Bell's theorem and related experiments, that quantum mechanics is inconsistent with local realism and there is the so called quantum non-locality. We show that such a claim can be justified only in a simplified approach to quantum mechanics when one neglects the fundamental fact that there exist space and time. Mathematical definitions of local realism in the sense of Bell and in the sense of Einstein are given. We demonstrate that if we include into the quantum mechanical formalism the space-time structure in the standard way then quantum mechanics might be consistent with Einstein's local realism. It shows that loopholes are unavoidable in experiments aimed to establish a violation of Bell`s inequalities. We show how the space-time structure can be considered from the contextual point of view. A mathematical framework for the contextual approach is outlined.
Realism and locality are defined emphasizing the fundamental character of both principles. From this, the well-known expression proposed by Bell for calculating correlations is derived. Starting from this expression, the theorem of incompatibility is proved between local realism and quantum mechanics. An analysis is made of the experiments performed by Aspect and others, and it is concluded that, because photomultipliers and polarizing filters are not perfectly efficient, it is necessary to make subsidiary assumptions about how they operate in order to rule out local realism. It is argued that the subsidiary assumptions are not logically necessary and, consequently, local realism has not yet been refuted empirically.
This open letter challenges Annals of Physics' Editors and Bell's supporters on this front: in the context of Bell's theorem -- after AoP (2016:67) -- ‘it's a proven scientific fact that a violation of local realism has been demonstrated theoretically and experimentally.' We show that such claims under the Bellian canon are curtailed by its foundation on a naive realism that is known to be false; ie, under Bohr's old insight (in our terms), a test may disturb the tested system. Further: (i) We define a general all-embracing local realism -- CLR, commonsense local realism -- the union of local-causality (no causal influence propagates superluminally) and physical-realism (some physical properties change interactively). (ii) Under CLR, with EPR-based variables (and without QM), a thought-experiment delivers a local-realistic account of EPRB and GHZ in 3-space. (iii) Under EPR, mixing common-sense with undergrad math/physics in the classical way so favored by Einstein, we interpret QM locally and realistically. (iv) We find the flaw in Bell's theorem: Bell's 1964:(14a) ≠ Bell's 1964:(14b) under EPRB. (v) EPR (1935) famously argue that additional variables will bring locality and causality to QM's completion; we show that they are right. (vi) Even more famously, Bell (1964) cried ‘impossible' against such variables; we give the shortest possible refutation of his claim. (vii) Using Bell's (1988:88) moot gloss on a fragment of von Neumann's work, we conclude: ‘There's nothing to Bell's theorem -- nor Bellian variants like CHSH (1969), Mermin (1990), Peres (1995); nor Bellian endorsements like those by Bricmont, du Sautoy, Goldstein et al., Maudlin, Norsen, Shimony -- it's not just flawed, it's silly; its assumptions nonsense; it's not merely false but foolish' and misleading. (viii) Our results accord with common-sense, QM, Einstein's principles, EPR's belief and Bell's hopes and expectations.
Quantum mechanics is strictly incompatible with local realism. It has been shown by Bell and others that it is possible, in principle, to experimentally differentiate between local realism and quantum mechanics. Numerous experiments have attempted to falsify local realism; however, they have consistently failed to close the detection loophole under strict locality conditions, thereby allowing local realistic explanations for their observations. In 2015, three experiments took place that tested local realism without the impediments of these significant loopholes. Between these three experiments, a substantial data set was collected. All of the collected data show a strong violation of local realism and strong support for quantum mechanics. This article reviews the theoretical basis of Bell tests and the affiliated loopholes, as well as the methods employed by these recent experiments and the implications of the results they observed. La mécanique quantique est strictement incompatible avec le réalisme local. Bell et d’autres scientifiques ont montré qu’il est possible, en théorie, de trouver la différence entre le réalisme local et la mécanique quantique expérimentalement. De nombreuses expériences ont tenté de falsifier le réalisme local; cependant, elles ont toujours échoué à combler la faille de détection dans des conditions de localité strictes, permettant ainsi des explications réalistes locales pour leurs observations. En 2015, trois expériences ont testé le réalisme local sans les entraves de ces failles importantes. Entre ces trois expériences, des données substantielles ont été recueillies. Toutes les données recueillies ont montré une forte déviation du réalisme local et un appui solid pour la mécanique quantique. Cet article examine les bases théoriques des tests de Bell et les failles af liées, ainsi que les méthodes employées par ces expériences récentes et les implications de leurs résultats.
Many experiments have shown that locality-realism theory is at variance with quantum mechanics predictions. Although locality and realism, which are two different conceptions, are given respective definition, the descriptions of the both are a little of abstract when they are applied to real experimental situations. The abstract descriptions result in difficulty for one to judge whether the variance come from locality or realism or both. Here we provide more detailed descriptions of locality and realism, and show that any system being in a pure state or a non-maximally mixed state has property of non-realism. We also present experimental schemes feasible under current technologies to test the non-locality realsim. The connections between non-locality and entanglement and correlation are also discussed.
Experimental measurements of entangled photons have enabled effective probing of foundational principles of physical law, Quantum Mechanics (QM) in particular. When it was noted that QM is non-local and precludes certain real properties, change in the description of basic phenomena was required. Bell's Inequality work clarified this conflict with Local-Realistic descriptions but left open whether locality, realism, or both should be abandoned. More recent investigations consider models that maintain forms of non-local realism as alternatives to QM. Problems with those are illustrated here, and support a non-local QM description of entangled photons having non-determinate properties.