- #1

- 79

- 0

Thanks!

- Thread starter cytokinesis
- Start date

- #1

- 79

- 0

Thanks!

- #2

jcsd

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 2,090

- 11

So you know what Bell's theorum is abstractly?

The following explantion is based on the one in*Quantum Mechanics* by Alastair Rae published by the IoP, though I've added a few bits and taken out others and generally changed the wording:

Consider a local hidden variable theory (LHVT) and a system of spin half atoms, as it's a LHVT the result of the measuremnt of the spins will be pre-detirmined before the measuremnt takes place.

Now consider the components of the spin in three directions (1,2,3). a set of N atoms will contain a subset of n(1_{+},2_{+},3_{+}) particles, each of them would mean apostive result if there spin was measured in any of the three directions, wheras, particles that are members of the n(1_{-},2_{+},3_{+}) would yield a negative result in the 1 direction and a postive in the 2 and 3 directions, etc., therefore the set of N particles conatins 8 mutually exclusive subsets as defined by their spin components in the three directions. You cannot define which atom is in which subset as measuring one spin component would change the others but as this is an LHVT all atoms must belong to one of the subsets.

Now lets say that each atom in the subset N is a member of an entangled pair (though obviously as we've assumed a LHVT they won't be truly entangled but they're measuremnts are still dependent on each other though pre-detirmined). By measuring the spin component of 1 member of the entangled pair in say the 1 direction and the other member in the 2 direction we will be able to know the components of spin in both the 1 and 2 directions of a particle by only disturbing it once as the measurements do not affect each other. we can by measuring these two components create 5 new subsets:

n(1_{+},2_{+}) = n(1_{+},2_{+},3_{+}) + n(1_{+},2_{+},3_{-})

n(1_{+},3_{+}) = n(1_{+},2_{+},3_{+}) + n(1_{+},2_{-},3_{+})

n(2_{-},3_{+}) = n(1_{+},2_{-},3_{+}) + n(1_{-},2_{-},3_{+})

etc.

If N is large enough we should be able to effectively measure any of the above three sets, also from the above we can detirmine:

n(1_{+},2_{+}) - n(1_{+},3_{+}) + n(2_{+},3_{-}) = n(1_{+},2_{+},3_{-}) + n(1_{-},2_{-},3_{+})

which means that n(1_{+},2_{+}) - n(1_{+},3_{+}) + n(2_{+},3_{-}) >= 0 (is greaterbthan or equal to zero)

The above is one way of stating Bell's inequality

Putting in the QM predictions for this (where θ_{12} is the anle between 1 and 2 obtained from the first equation):

n(1_{+},2_{+}) =NP_{+-}(θ_{12})

cos^{2} θ_{12}/2 - cos^{2} θ_{13}/2 + sin^{2} θ_{23}/3 >= 0

Now lets say that all three measuremnt directions are in the same plane (as they are allowed to be), therefore:

θ_{12}+θ_{23} = θ_{13}, now specializing further and conmsidering the case when θ_{13} = 3θ_{12} and now taking θ_{12}/2 as θ we get:

cos^{2}θ + sin^{2}2θ¸ - cos^{2}3θ >= 0

Now we can then plot this function we find that when θ = 20°, among others, the value is actually negative (-0.22) therefore the last equation cannot be true and the predictions of a LHVT differs from those of QM and both cannot be true.

The following explantion is based on the one in

Consider a local hidden variable theory (LHVT) and a system of spin half atoms, as it's a LHVT the result of the measuremnt of the spins will be pre-detirmined before the measuremnt takes place.

Now consider the components of the spin in three directions (1,2,3). a set of N atoms will contain a subset of n(1

Now lets say that each atom in the subset N is a member of an entangled pair (though obviously as we've assumed a LHVT they won't be truly entangled but they're measuremnts are still dependent on each other though pre-detirmined). By measuring the spin component of 1 member of the entangled pair in say the 1 direction and the other member in the 2 direction we will be able to know the components of spin in both the 1 and 2 directions of a particle by only disturbing it once as the measurements do not affect each other. we can by measuring these two components create 5 new subsets:

n(1

n(1

n(2

etc.

If N is large enough we should be able to effectively measure any of the above three sets, also from the above we can detirmine:

n(1

which means that n(1

The above is one way of stating Bell's inequality

Putting in the QM predictions for this (where θ

n(1

cos

Now lets say that all three measuremnt directions are in the same plane (as they are allowed to be), therefore:

θ

cos

Now we can then plot this function we find that when θ = 20°, among others, the value is actually negative (-0.22) therefore the last equation cannot be true and the predictions of a LHVT differs from those of QM and both cannot be true.

Last edited:

- #3

jcsd

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 2,090

- 11

The basic result is this, in order for quantum mechanics to be correct entangled properties such as spin must only be detirmined when the particle is measured.

- #4

- 79

- 0

The other thing I was unsure about was that Bell's theorem supposedly proved somewhat that superluminal communication was possible at not only a microscopic but also a macroscopic level. Maybe I'm misinterpreting what Zukav was saying, but if someone could either confirm this interpretation, or explain what part I'm missing, I'd be very appreciative.

- #5

jcsd

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 2,090

- 11

No quantum entanglement does not allow information be sent superluminally, but it does mean that you can by measuring the stae of one entangled particle detrimine the state of the other entangled particle an arbitarily large distance apart.Originally posted by cytokinesis

The other thing I was unsure about was that Bell's theorem supposedly proved somewhat that superluminal communication was possible at not only a microscopic but also a macroscopic level. Maybe I'm misinterpreting what Zukav was saying, but if someone could either confirm this interpretation, or explain what part I'm missing, I'd be very appreciative.

- #6

- 79

- 0

Thats my understanding of it and I dont think I'm understanding what he's trying to say entirely.

- #7

jcsd

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 2,090

- 11

That's just about right, the particles do 'appear'to communicate with each other superluminally, but the imporatnt thing to note is that this still does not allow information to be sent superluminally.Originally posted by cytokinesis

Thats my understanding of it and I dont think I'm understanding what he's trying to say entirely.

- #8

LURCH

Science Advisor

- 2,549

- 118

This, I believe, is the part that throws most people. There are two statements being made here.Originally posted by jcsd

No quantum entanglement does not allow information be sent superluminally, but it does mean that you can by measuring the stae of one entangled particle detrimine the state of the other entangled particle an arbitarily large distance apart.

1) "Quantum entanglement does not allow information to be sent superluminally."

2) "You can... and determine the state of the other entangled particle."

Logically, the only way these two statements can both be true is if knowing "the state of the other entangled particle" is not "information".

- #9

jcsd

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 2,090

- 11

Yes, but your not sending information you have to view the two particles as a single system, the only way you could if there was a way to measure whther a particle was unmeasured or not which of course is impossible as by making the measuremnt the particle would become measured.Originally posted by LURCH

This, I believe, is the part that throws most people. There are two statements being made here.

1) "Quantum entanglement does not allow information to be sent superluminally."

2) "You can... and determine the state of the other entangled particle."

Logically, the only way these two statements can both be true is if knowing "the state of the other entangled particle" is not "information".

Obviously people have tried to think of ways of sending information FTL this way, but it just can't be done, even though the two particles appear to communicate if they're measured or not superluminally.

- #10

- 79

- 0

- #11

jcsd

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 2,090

- 11

Sort of, though they can be seperated by an arbitarily large distance they are still part of the same uncollapsed quantum system, therefore a measurement on one will determine the outcom of a measurement on the other, It's called the EPR paradox. I can't really reduce it anymore than to say that they appear to communicate superluminally but you cannot send information using this method.Originally posted by cytokinesis

- #12

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 7,221

- 194

Here is a nice write up from my database.

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/bells_inequality.htmlDoes Bell's Inequality Principle rule out local theories of quantum mechanics?

Last edited:

- #13

- 398

- 0

- #14

jcsd

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 2,090

- 11

- #15

- 1,944

- 0

Originally posted by cytokinesis

The other thing I was unsure about was that Bell's theorem supposedly proved somewhat that superluminal communication was possible at not only a microscopic but also a macroscopic level. Maybe I'm misinterpreting what Zukav was saying, but if someone could either confirm this interpretation, or explain what part I'm missing, I'd be very appreciative.

There are a number of possible ways to explain Bell's theorem besides the existence of superluminal speeds, but only one known explanation resolves the paradox without contradiction based on first principles. Recently it was discovered by theorists that the entropy of information is proportional to the surface area. The implication is that what we are observing is a hologram, and that one of the four dimensions is an illusion.

Notably this is also what Relativity implies. Is it space or is it time? Mass or Energy? It is both and neither. Just as you cannot have a back without a front, a top without a bottom, you cannot have a particle without a wave because the two are aspects of a single unified whole we call a dimension. It is this unified whole that explains the so-called non-local effects Bell's theorem proves exist.

If you take a holographic film with a picture on it and cut it up into twenty pieces each piece contains the entire picture, just grainier. Let's say its a picture of an elephant. If you attempt to cut out just the trunk of the elephant you will get the entire elephant, just with a proportionally reduced clarity. The entropy of the information contained within the picture is proportional to the surface area.

Thus, the speed of light has been measured in laboratories as sometimes seven times faster than the usual 186,000 mph, yet the information cannot be sent any faster than usual. Instead of the light actually moving that fast what we are witnessing is apparently an illusion caused by the loss of information when we slice up nature so finely, and this could be the cause of the general randomness of Indeterminacy we observe.

Last edited:

- #16

- 163

- 0

One paragraph from one of Pagels'books seems to get to the point rather succinctly:

The next startling find in quantum reality shook physicists to the core. It began with a paradox formulated by Einstein and his two graduate assistants Poldosky and Rosen [usually called EPR paradox]. This was followed by thought experiments that resolved nothing until John Bell proposed a theorem, the Bell Theorem, and a real experiment to test the theorem. In a nutshell the experiment told us that the world was not locally causal! Simply put if two particles have been in contact with each and are sent out in opposite directions at the speed of light for a second, a year or a century, and then one of the particles is observed, say its polarization, the polarization of the other particle will immediately be determined: it will necessarily take the other polarization. Somehow a simultaneous change occurs in two particles separated by light years!

Cheers, Jim

- #17

- 79

- 0

- #18

- 1,944

- 0

Beyond a doubt it does and was instrumental in Heisenburg's first formulation of the uncertainty principle. John Wheeler and Roger Penrose have championed this position for decades and their work has been inspirational. However, it remains wholly unsubstantiated. In my personal opinion, if God is playing peek-a-boo as Allan Watts put it, we mere mortals are unable to pop God's bubble.Originally posted by cytokinesis

- #19

jcsd

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 2,090

- 11

What do you mean 'wholly unsubstaniated, Bell's theorum is generally accepted to be proved by the double delayed choice experiment by Alain Aspect et al.Originally posted by wuliheron

Beyond a doubt it does and was instrumental in Heisenburg's first formulation of the uncertainty principle. John Wheeler and Roger Penrose have championed this position for decades and their work has been inspirational. However, it remains wholly unsubstantiated. In my personal opinion, if God is playing peek-a-boo as Allan Watts put it, we mere mortals are unable to pop God's bubble.

Also this principle is the basis for quantum information being absolutely vital in quantum computing and quantum teleportation.

Bell's theorum doesn't imply anything like esp or telepathy, that's getting into the area of psychoparalllelism which is held to be incorrect by most physicists. What it does imply that the two particles are linked and can still affect each other instanteneously at distance, infact the usual way of viewing it is not as two particles but as a single quantum system.

- #20

selfAdjoint

Staff Emeritus

Gold Member

Dearly Missed

- 6,786

- 7

My dissent is with the big If that starts the statement. How are you going to find out that property unless you measure it? And once you do any measurement on either particle, you

Furthermore Bell's theorem never predicted, nor did any of the experiments ever demonstrate, anything more than an enhanced correlation between the particles.

- #21

jcsd

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 2,090

- 11

This is the convential interpretation.

- #22

- 1,944

- 0

I meant. of course, that the view that QM supports ESP and other parapsychic phenomena is wholly unsubstantiated. That this is merely one possible interpretation of QM out of many which has yet to be proven. As Stephen Hawking said, QM is a theory about what we do not and cannot know. Thus, it supports an incredible array of ideas without substantiating a single one.Originally posted by jcsd

What do you mean 'wholly unsubstaniated, Bell's theorum is generally accepted to be proved by the double delayed choice experiment by Alain Aspect et al.

Also this principle is the basis for quantum information being absolutely vital in quantum computing and quantum teleportation.

Bell's theorum doesn't imply anything like esp or telepathy, that's getting into the area of psychoparalllelism which is held to be incorrect by most physicists. What it does imply that the two particles are linked and can still affect each other instanteneously at distance, infact the usual way of viewing it is not as two particles but as a single quantum system.

- #23

DrChinese

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 7,364

- 1,156

I have Bell's original paper on my site in PDF format, unfortunately not a good quality version at this time (the paper turned yellowish).

EPR, Bell & Aspect: The original references

- #24

selfAdjoint

Staff Emeritus

Gold Member

Dearly Missed

- 6,786

- 7

Yes. And when you do the measurements and find your particle has, say, spin up along a particular line, you have two possibilities:Originally posted by jcsd

This is the convential interpretation.

- My measuremant just established the spin of both particles.

- Someone at the other end did a measurement that established the spin of both particles. They found spin down and forced my particle to assume the eigenvalue spin up. The first measurement destroys the entanglement and you don't know which was first.

You can't establish which came first without communicating to the other end, at light speed. And if the measurement times were close together you run into relativity of simultenaity. Furthermore the Uncertainty Principle comes in and fuzzes up the measurement, destroying the direction of causality (and this in fact is the true quantum response to the challenge of the original EPR argument).

The point is you can't get away with discussing the situation classically, as everyone wants to do. You have to take relativity and the uncertainty principle into account.

This is why Eberhard's theorem says that entanglement only establishes a correlation between the particles, not a causal relation.

- #25

jcsd

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 2,090

- 11

- Last Post

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 3K

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 16K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 3K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 5K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 417

- Last Post

- Replies
- 6

- Views
- 12K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 9

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 10

- Views
- 6K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 12

- Views
- 17K

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 3K