Register to reply 
Bell's Theorem  Easy explained 
Share this thread: 
#1
Dec2611, 06:47 PM

P: 685

Last week I had a blast with reading explanations on Bell's theorem. It was the first time that I've actually understood it. So I wanted to share some websites that explain the theorem in an easy way:
1) Spooky Action at a Distance – An Explanation of Bell’s Theorem by Gary Felder This article is easy to understand and only basic mathematics is used. 2) Does Bell’s Inequality rule out local theories of quantum mechanics? Updated May 1996 by PEG (thanks to Colin Naturman). Updated August 1993 by SIC. Original by John Blanton. This article is more compact than the one before. It introduces a notation often used in discussions, e.g. N(x+, y−). 3) EinsteinPodolskyRosen paradox and Bell’s inequalities by Jan Schütz A seminar report introducing the CHSH inequality that is used for experiments. 4) Bell’s Theorem explained A post on the blog Skeptic’s Play that uses set theory to explain Bell’s theorem. 5) Bell’s theorem analogy David M. Harrison uses a classroom analogy to derive Bell’s inequality. 6) Violation of Bell’s theorem Lecture notes by Leonard Susskind also using a Venn diagram. 7) Lecture 17 – EinsteinPodolskiRosen Experiment and Bell’s Inequality An excellent lecture by Prof. James Binney. You can download the lecture notes here. This lecture assumes that you know some quantum mechanics, e.g. how to calculate probabilities using Dirac’s braket notation. Note: If you have wondered too (like me) about the probability density function [itex]\rho(\lambda)[/itex] read this wiki article on local hidden variables. It explains that [itex]\rho(\lambda)[/itex] describes the probability that the source emits entangled particles with the hidden variable [itex]\lambda[/itex]. 8) Paradigms in Physics: Quantum Mechanics This is an online textbook made available by the Department of Physics, Oregon State University. Have a look at chapter 4 (quantum spookiness). Although they don’t use the term probability density (see note above in 7) it becomes clear now what is meant with [itex]\rho(\lambda)[/itex] . The authors use populations instead. 9) Bell’s Theorem with Easy Math and Bell’s Theorem and Negative Probabilities Two articles by David R. Schneider also known as our DrChinese. 10) John Bell himself presenting his theorem This is a talk given by John Bell at CERN. The youtube video has captions and you can also view a transcript of the talk. Feel free to add more links. 


#2
Dec2611, 07:19 PM

P: 1,412

Thank you, must check it out :) Is there any one specific link out of the above you suggest for the ones among us with little time?



#3
Dec2611, 07:42 PM

P: 685

I read them in the order listed above. After reading the first link I've already understood what Bell's theorem is about, so I recommend the first one if you have little time.



#4
Dec2711, 12:14 AM

P: 437

Bell's Theorem  Easy explained
Oh I am not sure if you have posted the link of this or not but there's a website of one of the PF users {Dr. Chinese} , his article proved to help me greatly with the understanding of bell's theorem.



#5
Dec2711, 04:58 AM

PF Gold
P: 3,080

But although the article is in all other respects painstakingly careful not to assume more than it can demonstrate, it misses the fact that it is not a requirement of the results of that experiment that the particles must carry with them "instructions" in order for them to present consistent results in the detectors. Of course, if one does assume the presence of such carried instructions, then the nonlocality must appear as a kind of nonlocal "change" to those local instructions, so a kind of fasterthanlight "influence". But this is overinterpreted. Better, in my view, is simply to drop the claim that there are any "local instructions" to change in the first place. After all, if we have established the system is nonlocal, who needs local instructions (and FTL "influences") in the first place! As we drop locality, it is much simpler to simply state that the "instructions" are also inherently nonlocal, and do away with any need for "influences" to propagate around. This makes it much clearer why there is in fact no violation of special relativistic notions of causality, as long as we drop locality. The article implies that such SR causality limitations are violated, and that's just not true. 


#6
Dec2711, 09:24 AM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 5,299

Here are several links to my Bell pages: Original references: http://www.drchinese.com/David/EPR_Bell_Aspect.htm Negative probabilities: http://drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theo...babilities.htm Overview with additional links: http://www.drchinese.com/Bells_Theorem.htm Easy Math: http://drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm 


#7
Dec2711, 09:28 AM

P: 685

I forgot to say that if you post a link, please enumerate it and add a short description. So, the next link would be 11).



#8
Dec2811, 03:19 PM

P: 685

11) Nonlocal correlations between the Canary Islands
This is an excellent blogpost on the blog BackReaction. It discusses the role of nonlocality in Bell's theorem, in particular the locality loophole and the freedomofchoice loophole. Prerequisite: Understanding of Light cones. Here are some practice questions on light cones. 12) Is the moon there when nobody looks? Reality and the quantum theory This is a very intuitive article by David Mermin. He introduces machines that have 3 settings and two lamps (red and green) and shows that assigning 3 "real" properties to particles results in a contradiction. 13) Spooky Actions At A Distance?: Oppenheimer Lecture A lecture by David Mermin on EPR and Bell's theorem. Here, he uses three entangled particles (see Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger state) instead of two. I recommend watching this lecture after you have read 12). 


#9
Jan612, 08:43 AM

P: 685

14) Bertlmann's socks and the nature of reality
by John Stewart Bell Here, John Bell derives the d'Espagnat inequality by considering socks that may or may not survive one thousand washing cycles at 45°C, 90°C and 90°C. The d'Espagnat inequality is: [itex]N(A,notB) + N(B,notC) \geq N(A,notC)[/itex] Bell mentions that this is trivial: Each member in [itex]N(A,notC)[/itex] on the right hand side either doesn't have property B and therefore is in [itex]N(A,notB)[/itex] or has property B and therefore is in [itex]N(B,notC)[/itex]. Thus, the left hand side cannot be less than the right hand side, in other words the left hand side is greater or equal than the right hand side. Note: When you read the document don't wonder about the figures. They are not missing but shown in the end.  By the way, Reinhold Bertlmann was a colleague of John Bell at CERN. He is a professor now and still seems to wear differently coloured socks. Bell's original paper (see DrChinese's site) becomes much more understandable with this document. 


#11
Feb2112, 09:51 PM

P: 1,583

I would recommend Nick Herbert's explanation here. The style of the proof is similar to Mermin's famous essay, but the logic is even simpler than Mermin's. The exact numbers used in Herbert's article, 0, 30, and 60, happen to be the ones used by Bell himself when he used to explain his theorem to popular audiences.



#12
Feb2612, 04:42 PM

Mentor
P: 41,304

Moderator's Note: Thread reopened. Please keep on topic. Per our rules, posts pushing nonmainstream views will be deleted.



#13
Feb2612, 07:34 PM

P: 168

I had questions about local and nonlocal quantum events, now it is clear to me like daylight. Thanks for the links, I'll read each of them as I get free time. 


#14
Feb2712, 06:53 AM

P: 1,414




#15
Feb2712, 06:55 AM

P: 1,414




#17
Feb2712, 10:55 AM

P: 168

Now I know an event in Anaheim (local) can be affected by an event in Baltimore (nonlocal). Even then I hoped, instead of showing percentage of mismatch, Herbert showed how measurements in Anaheim are changed by events in Baltimore. 


#18
Feb2712, 11:13 AM

P: 1,414




Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Bell's Theorem Problem  Advanced Physics Homework  2  
Bell Theorem  Quantum Physics  115  
Bell's Spaceships Paradox explained.  Special & General Relativity  104  
What is Bell's theorem?  General Physics  27 