I CHSH inequality : renaming and absolute values

jk22
Messages
732
Reaction score
25
In some derivations of the CHSH inequality, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHSH_inequality, the following arises :

$$CHS=\int A(a,l1)B(b,l1)dl1-\int A(a,l2)B(b',l2)dl2+\int A(a',l3)B(b,l3)dl3+\int A(a',l4)B(b',l4)dl4\\
=\int A(a,l)B(b,l)dl1-A(a,l)B(b',l)+A(a',l)B(b,l)+A(a',l)B(b',l)dl$$

1) But is it safe to impose l1=l2=l3=l4=l ?

Because if the absolute value were taken, then we could calculate for the classical model with the 4 l's that cannot factorize :
$$p(AB=1)=\frac{b-a}{\pi}$$

From $$C(a,b)=-1+\frac{2(b-a)}{\pi}=p(AB=1)-p(AB=-1)$$

Hence :

2) $$p(|A_1B_1-A_2B_2|=2)=1/16+9/16$$
Then the average of the Bell operator is :

$$|A_1B_1-A_2B_2|+|A_3B_3+A_4B_4|=80/32=2.5>2$$

Thus, whereas the absolute value has no influence in the CHSH version where all the variables are renamed to the same, it changes the average if independent variables are taken.

So the main question is : does this renaming not influence the CHS value ?
Or in other words : can Bell theorem be proven for all classical models without the condition : ##l1=l2=l3=l4## ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
jk22 said:
In some derivations of the CHSH inequality

Which ones? Please give a reference.
 
l1, l2, l3 and l4 are dummy variables. You certainly may give them all the same name "ell" if you like. These are integrals over "ell" lying in some space, of some function of "ell", with respect to "ell". The integral operation is additive. As long as you are integrating over the same space with respect to the same measure.

Source https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/chsh-inequality-renaming-and-absolute-values.985479/
 
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

Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
61
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
63
Views
9K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top