Can we violate Bell inequalities by giving up CFD?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the possibility of violating Bell inequalities by relinquishing counterfactual definiteness (CFD) while maintaining locality in quantum mechanics. Participants explore the implications of these concepts in the context of quantum entanglement and measurement, with references to specific models and interpretations.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that entanglement can be understood through superposition and does not require mystical explanations, suggesting that correlations in quantum mechanics differ from classical correlations.
  • Others assert that the violation of Bell inequalities is standard in quantum mechanics and provide a specific model based on a particular axiom that denies CFD.
  • One participant questions the definitions of locality and CFD, suggesting that locality can be maintained if it is defined as the absence of superluminal signaling.
  • Another participant expresses confusion about the relevance of CFD, arguing that Bell-type experiments involve measurements that are made, rather than unmade measurements.
  • Some participants discuss the implications of rejecting CFD, suggesting that it leads to super-determinism, where the outcomes of measurements are predetermined at the time of entanglement.
  • There is a contention regarding whether it is possible to separate entangled states into distinct mathematical objects for independent observations, with some asserting that this contradicts standard quantum mechanics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus; multiple competing views remain regarding the implications of giving up CFD and the definitions of locality in the context of Bell inequalities.

Contextual Notes

Limitations in the discussion include varying interpretations of locality and CFD, as well as the dependence on specific models and definitions that may not be universally accepted.

  • #151
Derek Potter said:
zonde - just call it physical realism :)
You are too radical. Physical realism allows probabilistic results just as well but we speak about CFD only in case of definite results.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #152
zonde said:
You are too radical. Physical realism allows probabilistic results just as well but we speak about CFD only in case of definite results.
No problem, I'd already deleted the comment when you replied :)
 

Similar threads

Graduate Did rotating polarizer show violations of Bell's Inequality?
  • · Replies 71 ·
3
Replies
71
Views
6K
Undergrad An Alternative form of Bell's Inequality
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Undergrad A popular explanation of Bell's inequalities
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
High School Can a Thought Experiment with Dice Challenge Bell Inequalities?
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
Undergrad Bell vs Kolmogorov: Unravelling Probability Theory Limits
  • · Replies 93 ·
4
Replies
93
Views
7K
Undergrad Violation of Bell Inequality with unentangled photons
  • · Replies 73 ·
3
Replies
73
Views
3K
Graduate Can entanglement be detected in a single Bell pair?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Graduate Bell inequality violated with classical light in experiment
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Undergrad Hidden phase in polarization tests of Bell's inequality?
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
6K
Graduate Violation of Bell inequalities for classical fields?
  • · Replies 70 ·
3
Replies
70
Views
8K