I Bell's Inequality is only valid for non-negative numbers

harpo
The Bell Inequality tests are only valid for positive numbers, which is reasonable because counts and probabilities cannot be negative. CHSH generates a negative number, which means CHSH experiments are invalid.

Bell's Inequality can be violated by having a negative value.

For example:
P(a,b) -P(a,d)+P(c,b)+P(c,d) <= 2
Which can be calculated as
a+b-a-d+c+b+c+d / a+b+c+d <=2
with
a=1, b=2, c=3 and d= - 4
then
1+2-1-(-4)+3+2+3+(-4) / 1+2+3+(-4) <= 2
10 /2 <= 2
5 <= 2

Is this correct?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
harpo said:
The Bell Inequality tests are only valid for positive numbers, which is reasonable because counts and probabilities cannot be negative. CHSH generates a negative number, which means CHSH experiments are invalid.

:welcome:

CHSH experiments yield results consistent with the predictions of QM. If you make assumptions that are invalid - as the Bell paper does - then it is possible you will obtain predictions inconsistent with experiment. That is what is happening here, the assumptions of locality and realism cannot both be valid.

By the way, your usage of P(a,b) -P(a,d)+P(c,b)+P(c,d) is not in accordance with its intended meaning by CHSH. But that is not important, as mentioned the experiments are valid for the intended purposes.
 
The test used by CHSH is:
E = (N11 + N00 - N10 -N01) / (N11 + N00 + N10 + N01)
S = E1 -E2 + E3 + E4

How does that differ from
P(a,b) -P(a,d)+P(c,b)+P(c,d) <= 2 ?
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!
According to recent podcast between Jacob Barandes and Sean Carroll, Barandes claims that putting a sensitive qubit near one of the slits of a double slit interference experiment is sufficient to break the interference pattern. Here are his words from the official transcript: Is that true? Caveats I see: The qubit is a quantum object, so if the particle was in a superposition of up and down, the qubit can be in a superposition too. Measuring the qubit in an orthogonal direction might...

Similar threads

Back
Top