
#1
Jan1513, 04:35 AM

P: 381

Hello guys,
I am trying hard to understand the reason of the violation, and i hope you give me some help. Here is my understanding so far: Bell's inequalities are based on the measurement of noncommuting quantum observables, e.g. the measurement of the spin in x and z direction. This, to start with, raises red flags! That's because the proof of Bell's inequalities does not include a dependence on what observable we measure, instead it's assumed that both s_{x} and s_{z} have definite values and are not affected by the measurement. But the experiments themselves, already tell us that this is not true! If you measure s_{x} then the value of s_{z} is altered! What this fact could mean is that the underlying "hidden variables" interact with the measuring device in an unknown physical way. For example, throw an electron in a SternGerlach aparratus (measuring s_{z} )and assume that this electron has well defined spins in all directions x,y,z before the interaction, described by an underlying local & realistic hidden variable theory. Ok, now the electron is seen to go upwards, i.e. it has s_{z} =+1. However, this interaction with the magnetic field may have altered s_{x} and s_{y} in an uncontrollable way! So, even if we had previously measured s_{x}, its new value after the measurement of s_{z} is different due to unknown underlying local, realistic physics! That way, it seems quite obvious that Bell's inequality may be violated without assuming nonlocality or absense of reality, since the derivation of Bell's inequality is based on the assumption that the measurement of s_{z} does not change the value of s_{x}. What is your opinion on this? In the literature, has it been studied? Are there any physical arguments against it? Thank you a lot! Giannis 



#2
Jan1513, 09:30 AM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 5,145

The easiest example to see this is with entangled photon pairs in which their polarization is always alike (ie from Type I down conversion crystals). Use the 3 angles 0, 120, 240 degrees. These are selected because the relative difference between any pair of these angle setting is either 0 degrees (same setting for Alice and Bob) or 120 degrees (any different setting for Alice and Bob). If you have a local realistic theory, the result for Bob cannot depend on the setting for distant Alice, right? According to QM, the coincidence rate for Alice and Bob, when they compare their results, will be .25 (25%) which is cos^2(120 degrees). Of course this is when Alice and Bob independently choose different angle settings. When they happen to choose the same setting, they must ALWAYS get the same result. Are you with me so far? 



#3
Jan1513, 09:55 AM

P: 381

A little while after my original post, i found a paper of A. Peres, "Unperformed experiments have no results" (Am. J. Phys. 46(7), July 1978), where he describes exactly this point. So you are right, there are two kinds of results entering a Bell inequality: the actual results from experiments that were performed, and the hypothetical results coming from experiments that were never performed. And there is no possible way to fill the latter in order to account for the quantum mechanical predictions. That's very nice :) 



#4
Jan1513, 10:16 AM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 5,145

Why are Bell's inequalities violated? 



#5
Jan1513, 10:39 AM

P: 381

What do you mean "if QM IS correct"?
The experiments violate the local realistic predictions irrespectively of QM's validity, right? 



#6
Jan1513, 10:54 AM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 5,145





#7
Jan1513, 12:08 PM

P: 79

There's no argument that some property (or properties) of the incident disturbances in relation to analyzer orientation determines individual detection, or that this property exists before, and is changed by, interaction with the analyzers. Bell's theorem has to do with how an lhv model of quantum entanglement might be written. There's still no universally accepted answer as to why it can't take the form that Bell proposed, or why Bell inequalities are violated. Maybe it's that nature really is nonlocal and this nonlocality is manifested uniquely in Bell tests. This seems unlikely and a bit too convenient for some. Maybe it has to do with the way the functions for individual detection are combined. Maybe Bell's locality condition encodes a restriction that has nothing to do with locality. These approaches, and more, are being explored. No definitive answer yet. Your thread question is an open question in physics. 



#8
Jan1513, 01:09 PM

PF Gold
P: 776

We don't know if Bell's inequality is going to be violated in a loophole free test.
Taking the conclusion from one experiment that closes x loophole, and coupling that with the conclusion from another experiment that closes y loophole doesn't mean it is going to hold if one experiment closes x and y loopholes. Though it seems unlikely, the physics community seems to be jumping up and down over nonlocality being real when no such test confirms it. 



#9
Jan1513, 01:36 PM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 5,145

I would certainly be interested in hearing about a local realistic theory that fails when locality is maintained, AND fails when the full universe is tested, but succeeds when both locality is maintained AND the full universe is tested at the same time. Exactly how do you think that would work? Oh, and how is it that QM is so wrong for every type of entanglement ever tested so far? That is, considering there is no such thing as entanglement in a local realistic world? 



#10
Jan1513, 01:48 PM

Sci Advisor
Thanks
P: 2,938

At this point, the odds of finding a loophole (in Bell's argument and the experiments that support the violation of the equality) that would allow us to bring back a local realistic theory of the sort that EPR hoped for are pretty slim. 



#12
Jan1513, 02:59 PM

PF Gold
P: 776





#13
Jan1513, 03:00 PM

PF Gold
P: 776





#14
Jan1513, 03:31 PM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 5,145

As I said, there is no scientific reason to mention that loopholefree tests of ALL theories have never been performed. No one is claiming we know everything. All we are claiming is that if QM is correct, there are no local hidden variable theories. And every test supports QM, which is all you can say for any theory. In normal everyday speak: a theory with sound experimental support is called "CORRECT". 



#15
Jan1513, 03:37 PM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 5,145

*I am guessing one that is also about 4000 years old. 



#16
Jan1513, 03:47 PM

P: 79

I think that something other than nonlocality will eventually answer the thread question. 



#17
Jan1513, 09:56 PM

Sci Advisor
Thanks
P: 2,938





#18
Jan1613, 07:31 AM

P: 3,178




Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
What does this example say about the applicability of Bell's inequalities?  Quantum Physics  38  
Bell's Inequalities and Double Dependencies on Hidden Variables  Quantum Physics  8  
What chronology of Bell inequalities testing ?  Quantum Physics  1  
About violation of Bell's inequalities  Quantum Physics  58  
Explaining EPR after Bell's inequalities  Quantum Physics  8 