I Does realism imply locality or vice versa?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sunny Singh
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Locality Realism
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between realism and locality in quantum mechanics, particularly in light of Bell's inequality. It argues that if realism is discarded, locality can still be preserved, as non-local hidden variable theories may exist without contradicting observable phenomena. The participants explore the implications of the EPR experiment, suggesting that if realism is absent, the wave function collapse may also be considered non-real, allowing for a reinterpretation of locality. They emphasize that realism and locality are distinct concepts, and while Bell's inequality challenges local realism, it does not necessarily negate realism itself. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the complexity of these foundational issues in quantum mechanics and the ongoing debate surrounding their implications.
  • #121
stevendaryl said:
where
C_\lambda(\alpha, \alpha', \beta, \beta') \equiv X_A(\alpha, \lambda) X_B(\beta, \lambda) + X_A(\alpha', \lambda) X_B(\beta, \lambda) + X_A(\alpha, \lambda) X_B(\beta', \lambda) - X_A(\alpha', \lambda) X_B(\beta', \lambda)

It might not be obvious, but since each of the Xs are between +1 and -1, it follows that C_\lambda(\alpha, \alpha', \beta, \beta') must lie in the range [-2, +2].

Letting
  • A \equiv X_A(\alpha, \lambda)
  • A' \equiv X_A(\alpha', \lambda)
  • B \equiv X_B(\beta, \lambda)
  • B' \equiv X_B(\beta', \lambda)
  • F(A,A', B, B') \equiv AB + A'B + AB' -A'B'
We want to show that -2 \leq F(A,A',B,B') \leq +2, under the assumption that all 4 variables lie in the range [-1, +1].

Let A_{max}, B_{max}, A'_{max}, B'_{max} be a choice of the variables that maximizes F. Then:
  • Either A_{max} = \pm 1 or \frac{\partial F}{\partial A}|_{A = A_{max}, B=B_{max}, A'=A'_{max}, B' = B'_{max}} = 0
  • Either A'_{max} = \pm 1 or \frac{\partial F}{\partial A'}|_{A = A_{max}, B=B_{max}, A'=A'_{max}, B' = B'_{max}} = 0
Suppose \frac{\partial F}{\partial A} = 0. That implies that B_{max} + B'_{max} = 0. So in this case: F(A_{max}, A'_{max}, B_{max}, B'_{max}) = A'_{max} (B_{max} - B'_{max}) \leq 2

Suppose \frac{\partial F}{\partial A'} = 0. That implies that B_{max} - B'_{max} = 0. So in this case: F(A_{max}, A'_{max}, B_{max}, B'_{max}) = A_{max} (B_{max} + B'_{max}) \leq 2

So we conclude that if F > 2, it must be when A_{max} = \pm 1 and A'_{max} = \pm 1. We have two cases: they have the same sign, or they have opposite signs.

Suppose A_{max} = \pm 1 and A'_{max} = +A_{max}. Then F(A_{max}, A'_{max}, B_{max}, B'_{max}) = \pm (B_{max} + B'_{max}) \pm (B_{max} - B'_{max}) = \pm 2 B_{max} \leq 2

Suppose A_{max} = \pm 1 and A'_{max} = -A_{max}. Then F(A_{max}, A'_{max}, B_{max}, B'_{max}) = \pm (B_{max} + B'_{max}) \mp (B_{max} - B'_{max}) = \pm 2 B'_{max} \leq 2

So in all cases, F(A,A',B, B') \leq 2. We can similarly prove -2 \leq F(A,A',B,B'). So we conclude:

-2 \leq F(A,A',B,B') \leq +2
 

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
72
Views
5K
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
8K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K