The proof of Bell's inequality is based on the assumption that distant observers can freely and independently choose their experiments. As Bell's inequality isexperimentally violated, it appears that distant physical systems may behave as a single, nonlocal, indivisible entity. This apparent contradiction is resolved. It is shown that the “free will” assumption is, under usual circumstances, an excellent approximation.
The proof of Bell's inequality is based on the assumption that distant observers can freely and independently choose their experiments. As Bell's inequality isexperimentally violated, it appears that distant physical systems may behave as a single, nonlocal, indivisible entity. This apparent contradiction is resolved. It is shown that the “free will” assumption is, under usual circumstances, an excellent approximation.
One of the Bell's assumptions in the original derivation of his inequalities was the hypothesis of locality, i.e., of the absence of the influence of two remote measuring instruments on one another. That is why violations of these inequalities observed in experiments are often interpreted as a manifestation of the nonlocal nature of quantum mechanics, or a refutation of local realism. In this paper, Bell's inequality is derived in its traditional form, without resorting to the hypothesis of locality, the only assumption being that the probability distributions are nonnegative. These probability distributions are calculated, for a specific optical experiment, in the framework of quantum theory and it is shown that they can take on negative values. This can therefore be regarded as a rigorous proof that the hypothesis of locality is not relevant to violations of Bell's inequalities. The physical meaning of the obtained results is examined.
While it is widely agreed that Bell's theorem is an important result in the foundations of quantum physics, there is much disagreement about what exactly Bell's theorem shows. It is agreed that Bell derived a contradiction with experimental facts from some list of assumptions, thus showing that at least one of the assumptions must be wrong; but there is disagreement about what the assumptions were that went into the argument. In this paper, I make a few points in order to help clarify the situation. Introduction Different authors have expressed very different views about what Bell's theorem shows about physics. The disagreement concerns particularly the question of which assumptions go into the argument. Since we have to give up one of the assumptions leading to the empirically violated Bell inequality, knowing what the assumptions were is crucial. For example, if author X believes that the argument requires only one assumption, A 1 , while author Y believes that it requires two, A 1 and A 2 , then X will conclude that A 1 ¬ must be abandoned, while Y will conclude that either A 1 or A 2 must abandoned, so A 1 may well be true in our world if A 2 is false. In this paper, I consider several assumptions that have been mentioned in connection with Bell's theorem, and I look into their roles in the proof of Bell's theorem. While I do not say anything here that has never been said before, I hope that my remarks can nevertheless be helpful to some readers. For the sake of definiteness, the version of the relevant experiment that I will consider involves two spin-1\2 particles, initially in the singlet spin state ψ = 2 −1/2 (|↑↓ ⟩ − |↓↑ ⟩). Two widely separated experimenters, Alice and Bob, have one particle transported to each of them. At spacelike separation, they each choose a direction in space, represented by the unit vectors a and b , and carry out a quantum measurement of the spin observable in this direction on their particle, ( a · σ ) ⊗ I and I ⊗ ( b · σ ), with I the 2 × 2 unit matrix and σ the triple of Paulimatrices. The possible outcomes, A and B , are±1 on each side. Bell's theorem is the statement that under the assumptions we are about to discuss, Bell's inequality holds; quantum theory predicts violations of Bell's inequality, and experiments have confirmed these predictions.
Bell's theorem shows that local realistic theories place strong restrictions on observable correlations between different systems, giving rise to Bell's inequality which can be violated in experiments using entangled quantum states. Bell's theorem is based on the assumptions of realism, locality, and the freedom to choose between measurement settings. In experimental tests, "loopholes" arise which allow observed violations to still be explained by local realistic theories. Violating Bell's inequality while simultaneously closing all such loopholes is one of the most significant still open challenges in fundamental physics today. In this paper, we present an experiment that violates Bell's inequality while simultaneously closing the locality loophole and addressing the freedom-of-choice loophole, also closing the latter within a reasonable set of assumptions. We also explain that the locality and freedom-of-choice loopholes can be closed only within nondeterminism, i.e., in the context of stochastic local realism.
The celebrated inequalities of Bell are based on the assumption that local hidden parameters exist. When combined with conflicting experimental results, these inequalities appear to prove that local hidden parameters cannot exist. This contradiction suggests to many that only instantaneous action at a distance can explain the Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen type of experiments. We show that, in addition to the assumption that hidden parameters exist, Bell tacitly makes a variety of other assumptions that contribute to his being able to obtain the desired contradiction. For instance, Bell assumes that the hidden parameters do not depend on time and are governed by a single probability measure independent of the analyzer settings. We argue that the exclusion of time has neither a physical nor a mathematical basis but is based on Bell's translation of the concept of Einstein locality into the language of probability theory. Our additional set of local hidden variables includes time-like correlated parameters and a generalized probability density. We prove that our extended space of local hidden variables does not permit Bell-type proofs to go forward.
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.
Entanglement is a prediction of quantum mechanics that suggests that our physical laws cannot be described by a local causal model. This has led to much debate, including Einstein's famous suggestion that quantum mechanics is an incomplete theory, and we may one day discover a deeper theory that can be described by a locally causal model. However, loophole free violations of Bell inequalities demonstrate that this is not the case. Bell's theorem is independent of quantum mechanics, and it shows that any theory attempting to supplant quantum mechanics must be somehow nonlocal. Since then, there have been many experimental violations of Bell inequalities using different physical systems, culminating in three loophole-free experiments [1-3].