- #1

- 8,181

- 1,920

I will post my summary of the EPR definition a bit later today.

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

In summary, Morrobay suggested splitting off a discussion from another thread. The discussion pertained to EPR's definition of local realism and the assumptions they used in their defense of it. The two assumptions are that there are no faster-than-light influences and that individual physical quantities are simultaneous elements of reality. Bell showed that these assumptions lead to a contradiction with quantum mechanics predictions. However, experiments have shown that these predictions are accurate. The hidden variables implied by the elements of reality cannot be located in the past light cone, but they can be located in the present or include a future component. This is consistent with time symmetric interpretations of QM.

- #1

- 8,181

- 1,920

I will post my summary of the EPR definition a bit later today.

Physics news on Phys.org

- #2

- 8,181

- 1,920

1. There are no FTL influences (i.e. no spooky action at a distance).

2. The individual physical quantities are considered to be simultaneous elements of reality. Otherwise, they state for the local realist position, reality here is dependent on the nature of a measurement there, and that would be unreasonable.

Bell showed that there are no datasets for angle settings 0/120/240** which also match the QM (and classical optics) predictions: cos^2(theta) in the case of photons. IF you consider the EPR criterion of element of reality to have been SUFFICIENTly satisfied for 0/120/240 (not much to quibble about that); AND you accept that experiments support the cos^2 relationship QM predicts****, THEN either 1. or 2. (or both) are unwarranted assumptions. QED.

So: There is one criterion, and 2 assumptions put forth by EPR. Aspect et al plus hundreds more have demonstrated that the QM predictions are accurate. This is the definition of local realism as envisioned by EPR and Bell. Basically, the elements of reality imply hidden variables. But the hidden variables, per Bell, cannot be local and traditional realistic. Where or what are they?

* The phrase is never used as such.

** Bell does not use these angles specifically, they are just one set of many possible. Makes no difference how many as long as there is one.

*** Notice that there is no need to simultaneouly measure 3 of anything to see this relationship. This is lost on many writers. This has been experimentally verified to well over 30 standard deviations.

- #3

- 8,181

- 1,920

But they can be located in the present. That is the Bohmian answer. In this view, the positions of other particles are participating in what is often called the "context".

The hidden variables can also include a future component. This means that the past and the future both form a context. This is consistent with time symmetric interpretations of QM.

Both of these views have the advantage of explaining why the hidden variables cannot exist in the past as predetermined quantities that exist independent of how the measurement is performed.

Loosely speaking:

Contextual <=> Observer dependent <=> Non-realistic

- #4

nanosiborg

- 35

- 0

DrChinese, I'm not sure what your point is.

- #5

mbd

- 53

- 0

Antonio Di Lorenzo defines clearly the assumptions of Bell's Theorem.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.1286

Andrei Khrennikov defines realism, locality, and other relevant terms such as value definiteness, contextuality, etc.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.0001

- #6

jk22

- 729

- 24

psi_before equals ((+-)-(-+))/sqrt2 and

psi_after equals* (+-)

since both differ we conclude there was a disturbance.

Hence we cannot use the EPR criterion of existence of elem. of phys. reality.

Bell showed that the supposition of such elements lead to a contradiction implying, if the criterion is correct, that either we disturb the system, which is already known, or we cannot predict with certainty, see * after, or both which seems to be the case

*normally the state of 2nd particle should remain undermined after the measurement of the 1st since 2nd was not measured and should be written as

psi_after equals (+,und) with und meaning any (parametrized by unknowns) state of 2nd system

thus we can't predict with certainty the outcome of a subsequent measurement of 2nd subsystem.

- #7

- 8,181

- 1,920

nanosiborg said:DrChinese, I'm not sure what your point is.

We split this off from another thread. Thought I would make a few statements to get things going.

- #8

- 8,181

- 1,920

mbd said:Antonio Di Lorenzo defines clearly the assumptions of Bell's Theorem.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.1286

He is a local realist. As I have said many times, if you deviate from the Bell definition of realism, then you may get a different result. So what in this paper do you think is relevant to the discussion of Bell realism?

- #9

mbd

- 53

- 0

DrChinese said:He is a local realist. As I have said many times, if you deviate from the Bell definition of realism, then you may get a different result. So what in this paper do you think is relevant to the discussion of Bell realism?

Both papers to which I provided links define terms consistently with Bell.

Antonio Di Lorenzo's paper (peer reviewed and recently published in Physical Review A) clearly defines the assumptions of Bell.

These are "measurement independence", "outcome independence", and "setting independence". See section III of the paper.

It's essential to state definitions independently of conclusions regarding theoretical or experimental evidence. These authors have succeed at this.

Previously I posted a link to a paper of a team that you'd probably characterize as non-localists (although the science of their paper is untainted with bias), and it too had clear definitions and a uniquely clear exposition of the implications of the assumptions due to Bayes' Rule. Here is that link again:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1002780107

- #10

- 8,181

- 1,920

mbd said:Previously I posted a link to a paper of a team that you'd probably characterize as non-localists (although the science of their paper is untainted with bias), and it too had clear definitions and a uniquely clear exposition of the implications of the assumptions due to Bayes' Rule. Here is that link again:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1002780107

This paper features a straightforward definition: "Realism is a world view 'according to which external reality is assumed to exist and have definite properties, whether or not they are observed by someone'."

I believe the inner quote is from Shimony & Clauser, 1978. I would call that standard, well-stated description from some of the masters in the field. I would not call them non-localists myself, as I follow their ideas fairly closely. I would say they believe in quantum non-locality (as I do). That is: a quantum context is not limited by a classical light cone.

- #11

- 8,181

- 1,920

mbd said:Antonio Di Lorenzo's paper (peer reviewed and recently published in Physical Review A) clearly defines the assumptions of Bell.

Not exactly. Not that I dispute the definition below, but I would hardly call that something

consistent with either EPR or Bell. These ideas are never mentioned in either paper.

From Appendix B:

"[Realism] is but counterfactual-definiteness, ... . It is well known [14, 21] that the hypothesis of counterfactual-definiteness alone is sufficient in order to derive Bell-type inequalities."

I say that both EPR and Bell explicitly state that locality is an assumption required to obtain their results. Again, I am not disputing the statement itself, just wondering how it ties in. As I keep repeating, when you deviate from the definitions of EPR/Bell, you may or may not get the Bell result. If you don't, that would not be a failure in Bell - it would be a semantic issue.

- #12

- 8,181

- 1,920

mbd said:Andrei Khrennikov defines realism, locality, and other relevant terms such as value definiteness, contextuality, etc.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.0001

OK, since you won't bring in a quote, I will. I always enjoy Khrennikov's papers, and would enjoy watching him and Norsen debate the matter. From your reference:

"(R) Realism: The possibility of assigning to a quantum system the values

of observable quantities before measurement2 and these values are confirmed

by this measurement.

(L) Locality: No action at a distance.

Therefore, anyone who accepts that experiments are strong signs that

local realism has to be rejected has to make the choice between:

(NONL) Realism, but nonlocality (Bell’s position).

(NR) No realism (nonobjectivity) and locality (Bohr’s position).*"

I thoroughly agree with the above definitions of locality and realism, they are fully in keeping with both EPR and Bell.

*A third option is also mentioned, one in which both realism AND locality are rejected. This is often mentioned as well.

- #13

lugita15

- 1,554

- 15

lugita15 said:Let's suppose that QM is correct about all its experimental predictions. Then whenever you turn the polarizers to the same angle, you will get perfect correlation. From this you can reach three possible conclusions:

1. Even when you don't turn the polarizers to the same angle, it is still true that if you HAD turned the polarizers to the same angle, you WOULD have gotten perfect correlation.

2. When you don't turn the polarizes to the same angle, it makes no sense to ask what would have happened if you had turned them to the same angle.

3. When you don't turn the polarizers to the same angle, then it may be the case that you wouldn't have gotten perfect correlation if you had turned them to the same angle.

If we assume the principle of locality (i.e. excluding backward causation), then the only way option 3 would be possible is if the photons "knew" in advance what angle the polarizers would be turned to, or equivalently whatever is controlling the experiment decisions about the polarizer settings "knew" in advance whether the two photons would do the same thing or not. That would be superdeterminism, and we exclude it by the no-conspiracy condition.

So now we have two options left. Quantum mechanics takes option 2. But if you believe in counterfactual definiteness, you are forced into option 1. And then if you accept option 1 and the principle of locality (again, excluding backward causation), you are forced to conclude that the decision of each photon to go through or not go through must be determined by local hidden variables that are shared by the two photons.

And then from there, it's a fairly trivial matter to derive Bell's inequality. See this excellent http://quantumtantra.com/bell2.html by Nick Herbert.

- #14

mbd

- 53

- 0

Here's a simple hypothetical counter-example to the conclusion that local realism is all but ruled out. I am not suggesting this to be physically plausible, nor am I proposing a theory. It is only an illuminating counter-example. It exploits two, if not more, known loopholes, that have not been closed experimentally. It has no backward-in-time effects, and no action at a distance, and results in CHSH correlations of 4.0.

Suppose that the measuring apparatuses are spewing, toward the emitter, a continuous, speed-of-light, stream of messenger particles that report the angle of the apparatus at the moment of messenger emission? Suppose that the emitter emits a pair of photon-precursor particles, one toward each measuring apparatus and that the photon pre-cursors remember the angle reported by the messenger particle arriving from their respective destinations at the moment of emission? Also, imbue the photon precursors with identical values if the measuring angles are pi/8 apart, and opposite values if the measuring angles are 3pi/8 apart. Now, also suppose that the photon pre-cursor observes the messenger particles it encounters along the way, and pauses whenever the messenger particle does not match the one seen on photon-precursor emission? Then, the pair of emitted photon pre-cursors can only arrive at the detectors coincidentally if both measuring apparatuses are at the same angles as they were when the photon pre-cursors were emitted. Upon arrival at the detector, the photon-precursors then produce a detection having the value imbued upon their emission.

The result in CHSH? 4.0

To make it do Malus' Law (to confirm measurements are consistent with classical photons), the particles need to, instead, slow or reverse course in proportion to how different the messenger is from the messenger seen at photon-precursor emission. It's less clear why this achieves a CHSH > 2 as well, thus it's left out in the simplified example above.

In any case, it passes the realism test, it violates Bell's Inequality, but it is not counterfactual definite.

Suppose that the measuring apparatuses are spewing, toward the emitter, a continuous, speed-of-light, stream of messenger particles that report the angle of the apparatus at the moment of messenger emission? Suppose that the emitter emits a pair of photon-precursor particles, one toward each measuring apparatus and that the photon pre-cursors remember the angle reported by the messenger particle arriving from their respective destinations at the moment of emission? Also, imbue the photon precursors with identical values if the measuring angles are pi/8 apart, and opposite values if the measuring angles are 3pi/8 apart. Now, also suppose that the photon pre-cursor observes the messenger particles it encounters along the way, and pauses whenever the messenger particle does not match the one seen on photon-precursor emission? Then, the pair of emitted photon pre-cursors can only arrive at the detectors coincidentally if both measuring apparatuses are at the same angles as they were when the photon pre-cursors were emitted. Upon arrival at the detector, the photon-precursors then produce a detection having the value imbued upon their emission.

The result in CHSH? 4.0

To make it do Malus' Law (to confirm measurements are consistent with classical photons), the particles need to, instead, slow or reverse course in proportion to how different the messenger is from the messenger seen at photon-precursor emission. It's less clear why this achieves a CHSH > 2 as well, thus it's left out in the simplified example above.

In any case, it passes the realism test, it violates Bell's Inequality, but it is not counterfactual definite.

Last edited:

- #15

- 8,181

- 1,920

mbd said:

Suppose that the measuring apparatuses are spewing, toward the emitter, a continuous, speed-of-light, stream of messenger particles that report the angle of the apparatus at the moment of messenger emission? Suppose that the emitter emits a pair of photon-precursor particles, one toward each measuring apparatus and that the photon pre-cursors remember the angle reported by the messenger particle arriving from their respective destinations at the moment of emission? Also, imbue the photon precursors with identical values if the measuring angles are pi/8 apart, and opposite values if the measuring angles are 3pi/8 apart. Now, also suppose that the photon pre-cursor observes the messenger particles it encounters along the way, and pauses whenever the messenger particle does not match the one seen on photon-precursor emission? Then, the pair of emitted photon pre-cursors can only arrive at the detectors coincidentally if both measuring apparatuses are at the same angles as they were when the photon pre-cursors were emitted. Upon arrival at the detector, the photon-precursors then produce a detection having the value imbued upon their emission.

The result in CHSH? 4.0

To make it do Malus' Law (to confirm measurements are consistent with classical photons), the particles need to, instead, slow or reverse course in proportion to how different the messenger is from the messenger seen at photon-precursor emission. It's less clear why this achieves a CHSH > 2 as well, thus it's left out in the simplified example above.

In any case, it passes the realism test, it violates Bell's Inequality, but it is not counterfactual definite.

I don't know where to start here. When you put forth a counter-example to local realism, it necessarily must adhere to several additional requirements of EPR and Bell. You don’t run through an actual example, so I necessarily must make some assumptions. First, does it give the same answer when Alice and Bob have identical settings. The answer to this is YES, so that is a good start. I know this is true because you have a formula which always gives the same answer when the inputs are the same (I will give you the benefit of any doubt on this point). This is the perfect correlations requirement which is to say: it meets the EPR test for elements of reality.

Second: Does it reproduce Malus? Sadly, no. That is because being deterministic, there is no way to get the random element going we need. So when the angles are only a few degrees apart, say 10 degrees, you will get the same results as when the angle settings are the same.

Lastly: There is NO explanation of how Alice and Bob’s communication occurs. I get that there is some mechanism for the handshaking between Alice and the emitter, and Bob and the emitter. But for the example to work, the emitter needs to know BOTH Alice’s and Bob’s settings. That mechanism is ruled out when the locality loophole is closed in an experiment such as that of Weihs et al (1998). You can have all the “precursors” you like, but that changes nothing when you review the light cones in that experiment. This is what Bell’s Theorem is ultimately all about: how are the relative settings of Alice and Bob communicated to each other or to the source since classical means are ruled out?

- #16

mbd

- 53

- 0

Malus' Law only requires "randomness" if you assume the completeness, or correctness, of quantum mechanics. In the absolute mechanism I described, of course Malus' Law is not honored. In order for Malus' Law to be honored, the rate of emission and/or the velocity of the hypothetical "photon precursor" needs to be modulated according to the most recently received messenger particle. This would be consistent with classical conservation of angular momentum. But, if you insist on randomness, then it is in fact easier to simply put local randomness in each "photon precursor" and have it create a photon event upon impact with the polarizer conditioned by a probability distribution that will result in compliance with Malus' Law. (so, now we're using the detection loophole too!)DrChinese said:Second: Does it reproduce Malus? Sadly, no. That is because being deterministic, there is no way to get the random element going we need.

There is no communication between Alice and Bob. No need to explain something that doesn't happen. All interactions depend only on locally available information.DrChinese said:Lastly: There is NO explanation of how Alice and Bob’s communication occurs.

Note: The original formulation used the memory loophole, time-coincidence loophole, freedom-of-choice loophole (Zeilinger 2010 closed freedom-of-choice conditional on certain assumptions). To comply with Malus' law, the refined formulation uses the detection loophole.

Last edited:

- #17

- 8,181

- 1,920

mbd said:1. Malus' Law only requires "randomness" if you assume the completeness, or correctness, of quantum mechanics. In the absolute mechanism I described, of course Malus' Law is not honored. In order for Malus' Law to be honored, the rate of emission and/or the velocity of the hypothetical "photon precursor" needs to be modulated according to the most recently received messenger particle. This would be consistent with classical conservation of angular momentum. But, if you insist on randomness, then it is in fact easier to simply put local randomness in each "photon precursor" and have it create a photon event upon impact with the polarizer conditioned by a probability distribution that will result in compliance with Malus' Law. (so, now we're using the detection loophole too!)

2. There is no communication between Alice and Bob. No need to explain something that doesn't happen. All interactions depend only on locally available information.

1. Since Malus is not respected, the Bell premise is preserved. You can have local realistic mechanisms that do not match the predictions of QM. And, as here, they will not match experiment either.

2. True, there is no communication between Alice and Bob in your example. That is another reason why you can never achieve a violation of a Bell Inequality. You will need that to have that happen.

PS Just saying you can prove "my non-mainstream scientific idea works" does not fly around here. You cannot publish your own personal theories here and say stuff like "CHSH=4" is the result unless you can prove it upon challenge. You will be reported if you continue this line of reasoning. Please return to the subject of this thread without asserting you have a counterexample unless you intend to demonstrate its successful operation in specific. Keep in mind that I will expose any flaw I find, and believe me, I have seen a few over the years in this area.

So the DrChinese challenge for your example:

a) Must yield perfect correlations at identical angles (zero degrees difference). Your current example succeeds here.

b) Must yield results consistent with experiment (Malus). Your example fails here. You will not have a 25% correlation rate when the angles are 120 degrees apart in your example.

c) Must pass the strict locality test. Your example fails here because the communication you describe is excluded in the experiments of Weihs et al (1998) which closed the locality loophole.

- #18

mbd

- 53

- 0

My intent: to advance understanding of Bell's Theorem, CHSH experiments, and their assumptions.

I also provided links above to peer-reviewed articles that explore and define the assumptions and loopholes, and present mathematical models that demonstrate the potential of these loopholes.

In contrast, you have misrepresented the state of the science, presented unclear, ambiguous, and inaccurate definitions, dismissed peer-reviewed articles on the basis of your personal opinions, and you have consistently misquoted and mischaracterized the posts of folks using this forum in good faith who disagree with you.

- #19

- 8,181

- 1,920

mbd said:DrChinese, I am very sorry for having gone out of my way to create an extremely simple, no math necessary, self-evident, example of a system that can violate Bell's Inequality.

The "counter-example" fails as I have detailed. And it is hardly self-evident. You may as well say it is self-evident that 1=0. I have commented on each of your references. None of these have anything whatsoever to do with your personal local realistic theories.

Last chance: retract or provide the specifics.

- #20

- 8,181

- 1,920

jk22 said:In QM treatment of EPRB it is seen from the onset that the measurement disturbs the system since suppose we measure 1st particle with + then

psi_before equals ((+-)-(-+))/sqrt2 and

psi_after equals* (+-)

since both differ we conclude there was a disturbance.

Hence we cannot use the EPR criterion of existence of elem. of phys. reality.

You have made a good point, and I am sure Bohr would agree with you! In QM the system is disturbed.

However, if you ASSUME that there was no such disturbance (as EPR does), then the criterion applies. (Of course there was something of a circular nature to the EPR argument.) They say:

"On the other hand, since at the time of measurement the two systems no longer interact, no real change can take place in the second system in consequence of anything that may be done to the first system."

- #21

mbd

- 53

- 0

DrChinese said:You have made a good point, and I am sure Bohr would agree with you! In QM the system is disturbed.

However, if you ASSUME that there was no such disturbance (as EPR does), then the criterion applies. (Of course there was something of a circular nature to the EPR argument.) They say:

"On the other hand, since at the time of measurement the two systems no longer interact, no real change can take place in the second system in consequence of anything that may be done to the first system."

There is nothing circular about the EPR argument. It is a standard proof by contradiction.

The assumption is that special relativity applies to all physical phenomena. With this assumption, measuring the first cannot change the second. QM, though, predicts a change to the second. So, either special relativity does not exclude "spooky action" or QM is an incomplete theory.

- #22

- 8,181

- 1,920

mbd said:There is nothing circular about the EPR argument. It is a standard proof by contradiction.

The assumption is that special relativity applies to all physical phenomena. With this assumption, measuring the first cannot change the second. QM, though, predicts a change to the second. So, either special relativity does not exclude "spooky action" or QM is an incomplete theory.

Wrong again! EPR says that if their assumptions are correct, then QM is incomplete. That is circular reasoning because their assumptions will be contested by reasonable people. For an assumption to work, it must be agreeable to someone contesting (ie agreeable to both sides).

EPR assumes no action at a distance - such as QM's application of the HUP non-locally - and concludes QM is incomplete. That conclusion is not generally accepted and never has been (although there were a number of scientists who accepted this early on).

What was accepted from EPR is that IF QM is complete, then the reality of a particle here is dependent on the nature of a measurement there. This is now generally accepted as being the case, although that assessment is somewhat more recent (post Bell).

- #23

berkeman

Mentor

- 68,103

- 21,666

Thread closed for Moderation...

The EPR paradox, named after its creators Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, is a thought experiment that challenges the principles of quantum mechanics. It suggests that two entangled particles can have their properties correlated in a way that is impossible to explain using classical physics.

Bell's inequality is a mathematical inequality that can be used to test the predictions of quantum mechanics against those of classical mechanics. It was developed as a way to test the predictions of the EPR paradox and determine whether quantum mechanics was a complete theory.

Bell's theorem proved that quantum mechanics cannot be explained by any local hidden variables theory. This means that there is no way to explain the correlations between entangled particles using classical physics, and that there must be some form of non-locality or action at a distance.

Realism, in the context of EPR and Bell experiments, refers to the idea that physical objects have properties that exist independent of observation or measurement. The EPR and Bell experiments suggest that this idea may not hold true in the quantum world, as the properties of entangled particles seem to be dependent on the act of measurement.

The EPR and Bell experiments have significant implications for our understanding of the nature of reality. They challenge traditional notions of causality and locality, and suggest that the act of measurement can have a direct influence on the properties of particles. These experiments continue to spark debates and further research in the field of quantum mechanics.

- Replies
- 12

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 120

- Views
- 11K

- Replies
- 11

- Views
- 749

- Replies
- 30

- Views
- 3K

- Replies
- 6

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 10

- Views
- 3K

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 17

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 17

- Views
- 2K

Share: