The aim of this chapter is to attract attention of experimenters to the originalBell (OB) inequality which was shadowed by the common considerationof the CHSH inequality. Since this chapter is directed to experimenters, herewe present the standard viewpoint on the violation of the Bell inequality andthe EPR argument. There are two reasonsto test the OB inequality and not the CHSH inequality. First, theOB inequality is a straightforward consequence of the EPR argumentation.And only this inequality is related to the EPR–Bohr debate.The second distinguishing feature of the OB inequality was emphasizedby Pitowsky. He pointed out that the OB inequality provides a higherdegree of violations of classicality than the CHSH inequality. Thus, by violating the OBinequality it is possible to approach a higher degree of deviation from classicality.The main problem is that the OB inequality is derived under theassumption of perfect (anti-)correlations. However, the last few years have been characterizedby the amazing development of quantum technologies. Nowadays,there exist sources producing with very high probability the pairs of photonsin the singlet state. Moreover, the efficiency of photon detectors wasimproved tremendously. In any event one can start by proceeding with thefair sampling assumption.
The aim of this chapter is to attract attention of experimenters to the originalBell (OB) inequality which was shadowed by the common considerationof the CHSH inequality. Since this chapter is directed to experimenters, herewe present the standard viewpoint on the violation of the Bell inequality andthe EPR argument. There are two reasonsto test the OB inequality and not the CHSH inequality. First, theOB inequality is a straightforward consequence of the EPR argumentation.And only this inequality is related to the EPR–Bohr debate.The second distinguishing feature of the OB inequality was emphasizedby Pitowsky. He pointed out that the OB inequality provides a higherdegree of violations of classicality than the CHSH inequality. Thus, by violating the OBinequality it is possible to approach a higher degree of deviation from classicality.The main problem is that the OB inequality is derived under theassumption of perfect (anti-)correlations. However, the last few years have been characterizedby the amazing development of quantum technologies. Nowadays,there exist sources producing with very high probability the pairs of photonsin the singlet state. Moreover, the efficiency of photon detectors wasimproved tremendously. In any event one can start by proceeding with thefair sampling assumption.
The aim of this paper is to attract the attention of experimenters to the original Bell (OB) inequality that was shadowed by the common consideration of the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) inequality. There are two reasons to test the OB inequality and not the CHSH inequality. First of all, the OB inequality is a straightforward consequence to the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) argumentation. In addition, only this inequality is directly related to the EPR-Bohr debate. The second distinguishing feature of the OB inequality was emphasized by Itamar Pitowsky. He pointed out that the OB inequality provides a higher degree of violations of classicality than the CHSH inequality. For the CHSH inequality, the fraction of the quantum (Tsirelson) bound Q CHSH = 2 2 to the classical bound C CHSH = 2 , i.e., F CHSH = Q CHSH C CHSH = 2 is less than the fraction of the quantum bound for the OB inequality Q OB = 3 2 to the classical bound C OB = 1 , i.e., F OB = Q OB C OB = 3 2 . Thus, by violating the OB inequality, it is possible to approach a higher degree of deviation from classicality. The main problem is that the OB inequality is derived under the assumption of perfect (anti-) correlations. However, the last few years have been characterized by the amazing development of quantum technologies. Nowadays, there exist sources producing, with very high probability, the pairs of photons in the singlet state. Moreover, the efficiency of photon detectors was improved tremendously. In any event, one can start by proceeding with the fair sampling assumption. Another possibility is to use the scheme of the Hensen et al. experiment for entangled electrons. Here, the detection efficiency is very high.
We emphasize the role of the precise correlations loophole in attempting to connect the CHSH type inequalities with the EPR-argument. The possibility to test theories with hidden variables experimentally by using such inequalities is questioned. The role of the original Bell inequality is highlighted. The interpretation of the CHSH inequality in the spirit of Bohr, as a new test of incompatibility, is presented. The positions of Bohr, Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen, Bell, Clauser, Horne, Shimony, Holt, De Broglie, Hertz, and Boltzmann on interrelation of theory and experiment are enlightened.
The first round of the Einstein–Bohr debates took place when Einstein challenged Bohr’s principle of complementarity at the Solvay conference in 1927 and Bohr successfully defended it. The most serious challenge, however, came in 1935 when a paper by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) argued that quantum mechanics was incomplete through a gedanken experiment motivating an approach based on hidden variables. In this chapter, EPR’s arguments about the incompleteness of quantum mechanics and Bohr’s reply to them are presented. The ultimate answer came almost 30 years later, almost ten years after Einstein’s death, and was nothing that Einstein would have expected. Bell’s inequality and the subsequent Bell-CHSH inequality, that are satisfied by all theories based on the “self-evident truths” of reality and locality are discussed. The startling results that quantum mechanics violates Bell’s inequality and the experimental results are in agreement with the prediction of quantum mechanics are presented.
Bell inequalities are intended to formulate mathematically the argument of the thought-experiment proposed by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) in the Einstein-Bohr Debate. Devised to test Bell inequalities against quantum mechanics for resolving the Einstein-Bohr debate, Bell experiments are purportedly modern versions of the EPR experiment. However, there exists a fatal logical flaw in Bell experiments. Because of the logical flaw, Bell experiments differ essentially from the EPR experiment, and quantum correlation in the EPR experiment is not "quantum entanglement" in Bell experiments; the latter is not physically meaningful. In addition to the logical flaw in Bell experiments, a physical constraint imposed on measuring individual quantum objects is violated by all Bell inequalities, which makes Bell inequalities physically meaningless. Unlike Bell experiments, the EPR experiment will not violate any physical constraint, and the EPR argument has no logical flaw. Consequently, the experimental invalidation of Bell inequalities is not evidence for falsifying the two fundamental hypotheses for scientific research, i.e., locality and realism, underlying the EPR experiment, and by no means can Bell experiments resolve the Einstein-Bohr debate. Stemming from abandoning either locality or realism or both, the so-called new applications of quantum mechanics, including various quantum information technologies, are all ineligible and doomed to failure, for they attempt to exploit physically meaningless "quantum superposition" or "quantum entanglement", treating them as physical resources "out there" in the real world.
The aim of this study is to produce a simulation of EPR experiments violating the CHSH-Bell inequalities using physically interpretable objects (properties defined before measurement) and interactions (no supraliminal communication), without influence from any theory. It turns out that the proposed model systematically violates the CHSH-Bell inequalities reaching all the values ( 2 ≤ S ≤ 4 ) . Our simulation reproduces experimental entanglements with greater efficiency. This approach has at least two consequences. First, it demonstrates that violations of the CHSH-Bell inequalities are possible while still verifying the principles of realism and locality, but in a different sense from that of Bell’s theorem. Therefore, Bell’s theorem itself is not called into question, nor are the results of the EPR experiments. However, it is the deduction that leads to the current interpretation (often described as strange because it does not follow one of the principles of realism and locality as defined by Bell’s theorem) that is challenged. Second, it challenges real-world EPR experiments to exceed the efficiency rates of our simulation. Our idealization demonstrates that, between the efficiency rates required to confirm the violation of Bell’s inequalities and the efficiency rates of our idealization, the interpretation of experiments remains possible within a framework of “classical” physical principles (properties defined before measurement and no supraliminal communication). Confirming the strangeness of quantum mechanics would therefore require obtaining efficiency rates higher than those of Bell’s theorem.
This chapter is aimed to dissociate nonlocality fromquantum theory. We indicate that the tests on violation of the Bell inequalitiescan be interpreted as statistical tests of observables local incompatibility.In fact, these are tests on violation of the Bohr complementarityprinciple. Thus, the attempts to couple experimental violations of the Bell-type inequalities with “quantum nonlocality” are misleading. These violationsare explained by the standard quantum theory as exhibitions of observablesincompatibility even for a single quantum system. Mathematically this chapter is based on the Landau equality. Thequantum CHSH-inequality is considered withoutcoupling to the tensor product, We point out that the notion of local realism isambiguous. The main impact of the Bohm–Bell experiments is on the developmentof quantum technology: creation of efficient sources of entangledsystems and photodetectors.