Bell Test Violates Local Realism w/ Loophole-Free Electron Spins 1.3km Apart

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jim mcnamara
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Entanglement
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a recent Bell test experiment that claims to demonstrate a violation of local realism using entangled electron spins separated by 1.3 kilometers. Participants explore the implications of the experiment for quantum mechanics, local hidden variable theories, and the nature of correlations in quantum systems.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that the experiment confirms quantum mechanics without introducing anything fundamentally new, viewing the observed correlations as simply correlations.
  • Others suggest that the implications of these correlations challenge local hidden variable models, raising questions about determinism and locality in quantum mechanics.
  • A participant emphasizes that the concept of 'spookiness' often associated with quantum correlations is not applicable to correlated systems, arguing that these correlations represent a different kind of probability theory.
  • There is a discussion about the nature of locality and how it relates to the underlying structure of quantum mechanics, with some suggesting that locality may not apply in the same way to entangled systems.
  • Several participants express confusion about the technical details of the Bell theorem and its implications for hidden variables, seeking clarification on how the experiment rules out such models.
  • One participant notes that the experiment's findings have been reported in mainstream media, indicating a broader interest in the implications of the results.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the implications of the experiment, with no consensus reached on the interpretation of the results or the nature of the correlations observed. Some agree on the significance of the findings, while others challenge the interpretations and implications drawn from them.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexity of the concepts involved, including the definitions of locality and determinism, and the limitations of current interpretations of quantum mechanics. There is also mention of the need for further clarification on the mathematical underpinnings of Bell's theorem and its implications.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those exploring the foundations of quantum mechanics, the implications of Bell's theorem, and the ongoing debates surrounding local realism and quantum correlations.

  • #61
stevendaryl said:
Quantum logic doesn't imply the invalidity of classical logic. People certainly use classical logic in reasoning about quantum mechanics.

That's right. Its a purely formal part of certain axiomatic treatments. Its better to look on it as a boolean algebra.

Thanks
Bill
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
simplex1 said:
The credibility of this article: http://www.drchinese.com/Bells_Theorem.htm written by the user DrChinese and talking about Bell's Theorem is quite low.

Wow - well I've been reading these forums for quite a while (but participating only recently). Not that he needs a vote of confidence, but Dr Chinese has been posting excellent stuff, particularly on entanglement, ever since I started reading this forum - and probably for a good while before then.

And you base your estimation of his 'credibility' on a historical sketch which puts things in context? Even if he got a few bits of this wrong (and I'm not saying he did) who gives a flying thingamabob? Sheesh.

Anyway - the history of that period is endlessly fascinating - and one can only imagine the confusion and sheer incredulity as bit by bit the classical world-view was found to be seriously wanting. I like to think it was Einstein who first really saw the storm brewing. There was a paper of his written around 1909 (not 100% sure of the date to be honest - it might be later, even around 1917) in which he showed that for black body radiation some of the fluctuations could be attributed to a particle-like behaviour and some to a wave-like behaviour. I suspect he thought "holy crap" at about that point, or the equivalent in German, but I could be wrong :-)

Entanglement is about much more than just correlation - Bell's original paper is an absolutely brilliant piece of work that gives us an experimental way of deciding this issue by examining correlations between observables, but the implications go much further, as Bell was only too well aware.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba, DrChinese and Doc Al
  • #63
Simon Phoenix said:
What do you mean by "logic"? As I understand it there are different kinds of logics in mathematics - depends on your starting rules (eg do you want to hold the law of the excluded middle as valid? Again as I understand it, it's perfectly possible to construct mathematically sound logics in which this principle is not deemed to hold).

That's correct. Its simply a formal system and forms what's called a Boolean Algebra:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_algebra

It turns out in QM the usual Boolen Algabra of standard logic is not what its based on. A technical discussion of logics in general can be found in Chapter 1 of Varadarajan - Geometry of Quantum theory. Its relation to QM an be found in Chapter 4 - Logics Associated With Hilbert Space. This is tied up with a famous theorem called Pirons Theorem:
http://stanford.library.usyd.edu.au/archives/sum2008/entries/qt-quantlog/#5

Its all part of a very mathematical treatment of QM. It is often said that when mathematicians get a hold of a physical theory they change it to something unrecognisable :-p:-p:-p:-p:-p

It certainly is a LOT harder. My background is math not physics and that book by Varadarajan stretchers me to my limit. I can follow it with time (a lot of it) and effort (again a lot of it) - but just.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • #64
A bunch of off topic and inflammatory posts have been deleted and this thread is closed.
 

Similar threads

Graduate First loophole-free Bell test?
  • · Replies 82 ·
3
Replies
82
Views
12K
Undergrad Big Bell Test Collaboration: Challenging Local Realism with Human Choices
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Graduate Experimental loophole-free violation of a Bell inequality
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Graduate Can entanglement be detected in a single Bell pair?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad Cosmic Bell Test: 600 yr Old "Freedom of Choice" Loophole
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Graduate Loophole-free test of local realism via Hardy's violation
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
7K
Graduate Implications of violation of the Leggett–Garg inequality
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Graduate Is delayed choice remote entanglement of photons derived from TDSE?
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
5K
Graduate Another loophole-free test of Bell's theorem
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
9K
Graduate How does Bell's 1964 theorem address detector independence and local realism?
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K