Bell Proof Against Hidden Variables in EPR

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on John Bell's theorem, which demonstrates that local hidden variable theories cannot replicate the predictions of quantum mechanics (QM) for particles in a singlet state. A key point raised is the misunderstanding of why the probability function P(b,c) cannot be stationary at the point b=c. The conversation clarifies that as b and c approach each other, the difference b-c does not remain stationary, which is crucial for understanding Bell's inequalities. The CHSH inequalities further refine this by requiring b and c to be orthogonal rather than collinear to observe violations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics principles, particularly the singlet state.
  • Familiarity with Bell's theorem and its implications for local hidden variable theories.
  • Knowledge of CHSH inequalities and their derivation.
  • Basic mathematical concepts related to stationary points and probability functions.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation and implications of Bell's theorem in detail.
  • Learn about the CHSH inequalities and their significance in quantum mechanics.
  • Explore the concept of non-locality in quantum physics and its philosophical implications.
  • Investigate the mathematical properties of probability functions in the context of quantum correlations.
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, quantum mechanics students, and researchers interested in the foundations of quantum theory and the implications of Bell's theorem on local realism.

msumm21
Messages
247
Reaction score
28
I have a question regarding the paper by John Bell (www.drchinese.com/David/Bell_Compact.pdf‎ ) in which he shows that a certain hidden variable approach cannot reproduce the expectation values predicted by QM for a pair of particles in the singlet state.

After eqn 15 on page 4, I don't understand the logic. Why can't ##P(b,c)## be stationary at the point ##b=c##? Seems like ##P## could have a minimum at ##b=c## and hence be a stationary point. How does ##P(b,c)## being the order of ##|b-c|## around ##b=c## prevent that? I guess I'm missing something big here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Actually saying Bell's theorem rules out local hidden variables is today's take. Bell viewed the violation of his inequalities as a failure of local causality of Special Relativity.

To me your question is just this: as b and c get close, then the difference b-c will take all sorts of small values and in Bell's words is not stationary.

I think this is a mathematical point: apply two colinear fields at b=c and the correlation will also be non stationary.

This point was addressed, if I recall, by CHSH who derived their inequalities to remove this point. However please note that this case (b=c) is very rare and the violation of the CHSH requires b and c to be orgononal, not colinear. Hence their magnitude is |b-c| = root(2)--look familiar.

hope this helps
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 80 ·
3
Replies
80
Views
8K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 66 ·
3
Replies
66
Views
8K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
6K
  • · Replies 72 ·
3
Replies
72
Views
8K