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

arXiv:quant-ph/9605003

A note on the supplementary variables in spin-measuring equipments in the EPR-Bell experiment

Won Young Hwang, In Gyu Koh, Yeong Deok Han

Published May 3, 1996• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

We discuss supplementary (or hidden) variables in spin-measuring equipments in EPR-Bell experiment. This theme was considered in a Bell's later work. We generalize it. First, we show why the original supplementary variable $λ$ is not to be regarded to include supplementary variables in spin-measuring equipments (why supplementary variables should be introduced additionally in spin-measuring equipments) Next, we show the followings. When the supplementary variables introduced in spin-measuring equipments have local correlations, the Bell inequality is recovered. On the other hand, when they have nonlocal correlations, the Bell inequality is not recovered. This fact is in accord with the fact that the Bell inequality is derived for local realistic models.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/9605003

Related papers

On supplementary variables in spin-measuring equipments in EPR-Bell experiments

Won-Young Hwang, In Gyu Koh, Yeong Deok Han

We discuss about supplementary ( or hidden) variables in spin-measuring equipments in EPR-Bell experiment. We show that why the original supplementary variable λ is not to be regarded to include supplementary variables in spin-measuring equipments. Thus, supplementary variables should be introduced additionally in spin-measuring equipments. When the supplementary variables introduced in spin-measuring equipments have local correlations, the Bell inequality is recovered. On the other hand, when they have nonlocal correlations, the Bell inequality is not recovered. This fact means that the nonlocality can be ascribed to that of spin-measuring equipments. PACS number: 03.65.Bz Key words: Bell inequality, local realistic models, supplementary variables in spin-measuring

•Jan 1, 1996•0 citations

The EPR-B Paradox Resolution. Bell inequalities revisited.

Jaykov Foukzon, Менькова Елена Романовна, Alexander A Potapov

Abstract One of the Bell’s assumptions in the original derivation of his inequalities was the hypothesis of locality, i.e., 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 a local realism. It is well known that the Bell’s inequality was derived in its traditional form, without resorting to the hypothesis of locality and without the introduction of hidden variables, the only assumption being that the probability distributions are nonnegative. This can therefore be regarded as a rigorous proof that the hypothesis of locality and the hypothesis of existence of the hidden variables not relevant to violations of Bell’s inequalities. The physical meaning of the obtained results is examined. Physical nature of the violation of the Bell inequalities is explained under new EPR-B nonlocality postulate. We show that the correlations of the observables involved in the Bohm–Bell type experiments can be expressed as correlations of classical random variables. The revisited Bell type inequality in canonical notatons reads 〈AB〉 + 〈A’B〉 + 〈AB’〉 − 〈A’B’〉 ⩽ 6.

Journal of Physics Conference Series•Nov 1, 2019•0 citations

Probabilities and Spin Correlation

Tan Tian-rong

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.

•Jan 1, 2005•0 citations

On the implication of Bell’s probability distribution and proposed experiments of quantum measurement

Hai-Long Zhao

In derivating of Bell’s inequalities, the probability distribution is supposed to be a function only of a hidden variable. We point out that the true implication of the probability distribution of Bell’s correlation function is the distribution of joint measurement outcomes on the two sides. It is therefore a function of both the hidden variable and the settings. In this case, Bell’s inequalities fail. Our further analysis shows that Bell’s locality holds neither for dependent events nor for independent events. We think that the measurements of EPR pairs are dependent events, and hence violation of Bell’s inequalities cannot rule out the existence of local hidden variable. To explain the results of EPR-type experiments, we suppose that a polarization-entangled photon pair can be composed of two circularly or linearly polarized photons with correlated hidden variables, and a couple of experiments of quantum measurement are proposed. The first uses delayed measurement on one photon of the EPR pair to demonstrate directly whether measurement on the other could have any nonlocal influence on it. Then several experiments are suggested to reveal the components of the polarization-entangled photon pair. The last one uses successive polarization measurements on a pair of EPR photons to show that two photons with the same quantum state behave the same under the same measuring conditions.

arXiv:0906.0279•Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics•Dec 1, 2013•4 citations

A Reexamination on Bell's Theorem

Tan Tian-rong

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).

•Jan 1, 2005•0 citations

On the Implication of Bell's Probability Distribution and Proposed Experiments of Quantum Measurement

Hai-Long Zhao

In the derivation of Bell's inequalities, probability distribution is supposed to be a function of only hidden variable. We point out that the true implication of the probability distribution of Bell's correlation function is the distribution of the joint measurement outcomes on the two sides. So it is a function of both hidden variable and settings. In this case, Bell's inequalities fail. Our further analysis shows that Bell's locality holds neither for dependent events nor for independent events. We think that the measurements of EPR pairs are dependent events, thus violation of Bell's inequalities cannot rule out the existence of local hidden variable. In order to explain the results of EPR-type experiments, we suppose that polarization entangled photon pair can be composed of two circularly or linearly polarized photons with correlated hidden variables, and a couple of experiments of quantum measurement are proposed. The first uses delayed measurement on one photon of the EPR pair to demonstrate directly whether measurement on the other could have any non-local influence on it. Then several experiments are suggested to reveal the components of polarization entangled photon pair. The last one uses successive polarization measurements on a pair of EPR photons to show that two photons with a same quantum state will behave in the same way under the same measuring condition.

•Jun 1, 2009•0 citations
We discuss supplementary (or hidden) variables in spin-measuring equipments in EPR-Bell experiment. This theme was considered in a Bell's later work. We generalize it. First, we show why the original supplementary variable λλλ is not to be regarded to include supplementary variables in spin-measuring equipments (why supplementary variables should be introduced additionally in spin-measuring equipments) Next, we show the followings. When the supplementary variables introduced in spin-measuring equipments have local correlations, the Bell inequality is recovered. On the other hand, when they have nonlocal correlations, the Bell inequality is not recovered. This fact is in accord with the fact that the Bell inequality is derived for local realistic models.
We discuss about supplementary ( or hidden) variables in spin-measuring equipments in EPR-Bell experiment. We show that why the original supplementary variable λ is not to be regarded to include supplementary variables in spin-measuring equipments. Thus, supplementary variables should be introduced additionally in spin-measuring equipments. When the supplementary variables introduced in spin-measuring equipments have local correlations, the Bell inequality is recovered. On the other hand, when they have nonlocal correlations, the Bell inequality is not recovered. This fact means that the nonlocality can be ascribed to that of spin-measuring equipments. PACS number: 03.65.Bz Key words: Bell inequality, local realistic models, supplementary variables in spin-measuring
Abstract One of the Bell’s assumptions in the original derivation of his inequalities was the hypothesis of locality, i.e., 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 a local realism. It is well known that the Bell’s inequality was derived in its traditional form, without resorting to the hypothesis of locality and without the introduction of hidden variables, the only assumption being that the probability distributions are nonnegative. This can therefore be regarded as a rigorous proof that the hypothesis of locality and the hypothesis of existence of the hidden variables not relevant to violations of Bell’s inequalities. The physical meaning of the obtained results is examined. Physical nature of the violation of the Bell inequalities is explained under new EPR-B nonlocality postulate. We show that the correlations of the observables involved in the Bohm–Bell type experiments can be expressed as correlations of classical random variables. The revisited Bell type inequality in canonical notatons reads 〈AB〉 + 〈A’B〉 + 〈AB’〉 − 〈A’B’〉 ⩽ 6.
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.
In derivating of Bell’s inequalities, the probability distribution is supposed to be a function only of a hidden variable. We point out that the true implication of the probability distribution of Bell’s correlation function is the distribution of joint measurement outcomes on the two sides. It is therefore a function of both the hidden variable and the settings. In this case, Bell’s inequalities fail. Our further analysis shows that Bell’s locality holds neither for dependent events nor for independent events. We think that the measurements of EPR pairs are dependent events, and hence violation of Bell’s inequalities cannot rule out the existence of local hidden variable. To explain the results of EPR-type experiments, we suppose that a polarization-entangled photon pair can be composed of two circularly or linearly polarized photons with correlated hidden variables, and a couple of experiments of quantum measurement are proposed. The first uses delayed measurement on one photon of the EPR pair to demonstrate directly whether measurement on the other could have any nonlocal influence on it. Then several experiments are suggested to reveal the components of the polarization-entangled photon pair. The last one uses successive polarization measurements on a pair of EPR photons to show that two photons with the same quantum state behave the same under the same measuring conditions.
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).
In the derivation of Bell's inequalities, probability distribution is supposed to be a function of only hidden variable. We point out that the true implication of the probability distribution of Bell's correlation function is the distribution of the joint measurement outcomes on the two sides. So it is a function of both hidden variable and settings. In this case, Bell's inequalities fail. Our further analysis shows that Bell's locality holds neither for dependent events nor for independent events. We think that the measurements of EPR pairs are dependent events, thus violation of Bell's inequalities cannot rule out the existence of local hidden variable. In order to explain the results of EPR-type experiments, we suppose that polarization entangled photon pair can be composed of two circularly or linearly polarized photons with correlated hidden variables, and a couple of experiments of quantum measurement are proposed. The first uses delayed measurement on one photon of the EPR pair to demonstrate directly whether measurement on the other could have any non-local influence on it. Then several experiments are suggested to reveal the components of polarization entangled photon pair. The last one uses successive polarization measurements on a pair of EPR photons to show that two photons with a same quantum state will behave in the same way under the same measuring condition.