It is brought to light that a joint probability for two arbitrary projections of an electron spin (or another fermion's spin) is actually used in Proof for Bell's theorem and this joint probability is fictitious, so that Bell's theorem is faulty. Also, significance of Bell's work is established, with aid of the hidden variable expression of the spin correlation function or another formula, an artificial relation between these unreal joint probabilities and real transition probabilities, and finding a contradiction. As a result, it is revealed that these two kinds of probabilities obey different laws respectively. This work has nothing to do with locality nor with classical probabilities.
It is brought to light that a joint probability for two arbitrary projections of an electron spin (or another fermion's spin) is actually used in Proof for Bell's theorem and this joint probability is fictitious, so that Bell's theorem is faulty. Also, significance of Bell's work is established, with aid of the hidden variable expression of the spin correlation function or another formula, an artificial relation between these unreal joint probabilities and real transition probabilities, and finding a contradiction. As a result, it is revealed that these two kinds of probabilities obey different laws respectively. This work has nothing to do with locality nor with classical probabilities.
Bell’s inequality can be traced back to a classical probabilistic formula that is invalid clearly, while spin correlation formula in quantum mechanics to a formula that has confirmed both by facts and quantum mechanics. Bell’s two misunderstandings about Bell’s theorem are pointed out: Firstly, the hidden variable theory Bell’s used, which is a special form of such theories, is regarded as a general one. Secondly, there are two theses obtainable from Bell’s hypotheses; one is compatible with quantum mechanics, 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 thesis, 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 without regard to Bell’s inequality.
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).
This paper proves that Bell's inequality is originated from classical probability theory,and thereby is related neither to locality nor to hidden variables.But it is also possible to derive spin correlation formula in quantum mechanics according to the classical probabilistic theory.This fact indicates that on cer- tain conditions,classical probabilistic theory would be inconsistent with quantum mechanics,but under other conditions,classical probabilistic theory and quantum mechanics would,reach the same goal by different means.Still further,this paper confirms that all of the probability operation rules in classical probability theo- ry,containing joint probability operation rules,are suitable for micro processes,but the event operation rules in classical probability theory are unsuitable.The reason obtaining Bell's inequality lies in the steps applying Boolean algebra rules on the non-Boolean micro event space.
Bell's theorem states that quantum correlation function of two spins can not be represented as an expectation value of two classical random variables. Spin is described in Bell's model by a single scalar random variable. We discuss another classical model of spin in which spin is described by a triple of classical random variables. It is shown that in this model the quantum correlation function can be represented as the expectation value of classical random variables. Implications of this result to the problem of local causality of quantum mechanics and relations with problems of moments are briefly mentioned.
A hidden-variable theory is the traditional, but not unique, basis for constructing various types of Bell's theorem. The starting point may also be a recognition of the existence of a positive-definite probability distribution function. This assumption alone is used to formulate and prove Bell's paradoxes of different types. A specific example is used to show that a formal quantum calculation can sometimes give negative values of the joint probabilities that are used in the proof. An attempt is made to identify the physical meaning of this result and an algorithm for determination of negative joint probabilities of this type is proposed.
In the debate of the foundations of quantum theory (QM), Bell’s theorem [1] is an important milestone. Based on Einstein’s criticism of completeness [2], Bell formulated an expression for the correlation between distant spin measurements such as described by Bohm [3]. In Bell’s expression, hidden variables to restore locality and causality to the theory (LHV’s) are introduced through a probability (mass) density function and through their influence upon the elementary measurement functions in the two separate wings (denoted by the Aand the B-wing) of the experiment. Many experiments and theoretical developments arose from Bell’s original paper. The most important experiment was performed by Aspect [4]. Aspect’s results were interpreted as a confirmation of the completeness of quantum mechanics. From that point, QM was considered a non-local theory. In a previous paper [5] the present author argued that there was insufficient ground for this conclusion. The author would like to point that merely an appeal to the simplicity and apparent logical truth of Bell’s theorem is advanced to support the exclusive non-locality interpretation. Beyond that, there is no proof that experimental results must exclusively be interpreted in this manner. According to the author the inequalities of Bell were given the status of theorem without sufficient supportive evidence save simplicity. In this paper it will be demonstrated that such a conclusive supportive argument of Bell’s theorem does not exist because an approximate classical model is possible. The principles of the proposed model can also be expressed in numerical terms. This enables numerical simulation of the experiments on a computer. Let us shortly describe a typical idealized Bell experiment. In such an experiment, from a single source, two particles with opposite spin are sent into opposite directions. For instance, we could think of a positron and an electron arising from para-Positronium that are drawn apart by dipole radiation. Subsequently, in the respective wings of the experimental set-up, the spin of the individual particle is measured with a SternGerlach magnet. The measurements are found to be correlated with the, unitary, parameter vectors of the magnets, a = (a1, a2, a3),b = (b1, b2, b3). It is well-known that the QM correlation for singlet state electron and positron is equal to,