Necessity of Bell's experiment

  • Thread starter guillefix
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Experiment
In summary, Bell's experiment is used to prove that there are no local hidden variables in quantum mechanics. It demonstrates that even with the same initial conditions, the universe is not deterministic and there is apparent indeterminism. Bell's theorem is necessary to rule out locality for certain theories, but more straightforward arguments can also suffice. The main issue is not determinism, but the "spooky action at a distance" that goes against the principle of local causality. Bell's inequalities and the "free will" assumption are not necessary for this conclusion.
  • #1
guillefix
77
0
Hello, I was just wondering why do you need Bell's experiment to prove that there are no local hidden variables? If you do ANY experiment with the same initial conditions, and you don't get the same result, then it's clear the universe is not deterministic! is it not?

I guess you can say, how can you control the whole universe? But if you create a photon, then you just need to control the past light cone since the photon was created, which is considerably much easier.

I guess then tha Bohms theory suggest that what causes things to look underteminsitic is things outside this cone affecting the result.

Anyway, my question is that if any experiment would be valid for proving this, why is Bell's experiment all that important?

It seems to me that Bell's inequality experiment is just proving that the particles are correlated because the inequality assumes the particles are random (doesnt matter wether statistically or fundamentally) but uncorrelated, and thus it will be violated by particles that are correlated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
guillefix said:
Hello, I was just wondering why do you need Bell's experiment to prove that there are no local hidden variables? If you do ANY experiment with the same initial conditions, and you don't get the same result, then it's clear the universe is not deterministic! is it not?

There are stochastic type theories which postulate that you do not have access to sufficient information to prepare the initial conditions in the manner you describe. Therefore there is apparent indeterminism even though the underlying physical processes are purely deterministic. Bell demonstrates this is not possible for local physical operations, or more accurately, is incompatible with quantum mechanics.
 
  • #3
guillefix said:
If you do ANY experiment with the same initial conditions, and you don't get the same result, then it's clear the universe is not deterministic! is it not?
It is not. The problem is that you can never know that ALL the initial conditions were the same. A typical experimental apparatus has at least 10^23 degrees of freedom, while you can really control only a few of them. Considering only the past light cone does not change this fact significantly.
 
  • #4
DrChinese said:
There are stochastic type theories which postulate that you do not have access to sufficient information to prepare the initial conditions in the manner you describe. Therefore there is apparent indeterminism even though the underlying physical processes are purely deterministic. Bell demonstrates this is not possible for local physical operations, or more accurately, is incompatible with quantum mechanics.

Is the main difference that in QM there's always half probability of going through with entangled photons no matter the polarization, but as in classical M photons have a certain polarization the probability depends? Anyway i can't see how they would yield different results. Probably that was the genius of Bell

Btw sorry for answering late
 
  • #5
guillefix said:
Hello, I was just wondering why do you need Bell's to prove that there are no local hidden variables? If you do ANY experiment with the same initial conditions, and you don't get the same result, then it's clear the universe is not deterministic! is it not?

to that respect

http://www.springerlink.com/content/h105488q281v42p4/fulltext.pdf

...Finally, our results demonstrate that one doesn’t need the “big guns” of Bell’s theorem to rule out locality for any theories in which ψ is given ontic status; more straightforward arguments suffice. Bell’s argument is only necessary to rule out locality for ψ-epistemic hidden variable theories...
 
  • #6
guillefix said:
Hello, I was just wondering why do you need Bell's experiment to prove that there are no local hidden variables? If you do ANY experiment with the same initial conditions, and you don't get the same result, then it's clear the universe is not deterministic! is it not?

I guess you can say, how can you control the whole universe? But if you create a photon, then you just need to control the past light cone since the photon was created, which is considerably much easier.

I guess then tha Bohms theory suggest that what causes things to look underteminsitic is things outside this cone affecting the result.

Anyway, my question is that if any experiment would be valid for proving this, why is Bell's experiment all that important?

It seems to me that Bell's inequality experiment is just proving that the particles are correlated because the inequality assumes the particles are random (doesnt matter wether statistically or fundamentally) but uncorrelated, and thus it will be violated by particles that are correlated.
You cannot know that the initial conditions are the same if you don't know if there are no hidden variables. :wink: Moreover, you seem to think that the main issue is determinism. It's not. Instead, it's about what seems to be, as Einstein called it, "spooky action at a distance".

Bell: "What is held sacred is the principle of "local causality" or "no action at a distance". [..] It is remarkably difficult to get this point across, that determinism is not the presupposition of the analysis. There is a widespread and erroneous conviction that for Einstein determinism was always the sacred principle."
- cdsweb.cern.ch/record/142461/files/198009299.pdf
 
  • #7
Ok, I get it. Local hidden variables won't give the same result as quantum mechanics, so it's a no-go theorem. I wanted to check this and I calculated the probability of the spin of one of two entangled electrons being up along z, and the other up along 1/sqrt(2)*z+1/sqrt(2)*x, and got 0.07322, and then did a classical case in which electrons have certain correlated spins but randomlly distributed, and got 0.36254. So if my working is right, this proves they are incompatible!
 
  • #8
guillefix said:
Hello, I was wondering why do you Bell's to prove that there are no local variables?


...It is important to comment on some of the facts that are commonly overlooked in obtaining the conclusion that quantum theory violates local causality. Firstly, not needed are Bell’s inequalities . Secondly, not needed is a ‘free will’ assumption whereby one assumes a form of
independence between λ and the settings a, b. Thirdly, there is no need for an analysis of the ‘collapse of the wavefunction’ as a real physical process...

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1010.3714v1
 

1. What is Bell's experiment and why is it important?

Bell's experiment, also known as the Bell test or Bell's inequality test, is a scientific experiment designed to test the validity of quantum mechanics. It is important because it provides evidence for the existence of quantum entanglement and challenges classical physics theories.

2. How does Bell's experiment work?

Bell's experiment involves entangling two particles and measuring their properties, such as spin, at a distance. If quantum mechanics is correct, the particles should be correlated, regardless of the distance between them, and violate Bell's inequality.

3. What is the significance of Bell's inequality?

Bell's inequality is a mathematical concept that states that if a system is described by local hidden variables, it cannot violate certain inequalities. However, Bell's experiment has shown that these inequalities can be violated, providing evidence against local hidden variables and supporting the principles of quantum mechanics.

4. How has Bell's experiment impacted the field of physics?

Bell's experiment has had a significant impact on the field of physics, as it has provided evidence for the validity of quantum mechanics and challenged classical theories. It has also led to the development of new technologies, such as quantum cryptography, which relies on the principles of quantum entanglement.

5. What are the potential applications of Bell's experiment?

Bell's experiment has potential applications in various fields, including quantum computing, quantum communication, and quantum cryptography. It could also lead to a better understanding of the fundamental principles of the universe and potentially open up new avenues for scientific exploration.

Similar threads

Replies
50
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
954
Replies
80
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
778
Replies
25
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
50
Views
4K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
1
Views
700
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
28
Views
1K
Back
Top