Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qlrfm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-15T07:52:21.984Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - The Assumptions of Bell's Proof

from Part II - Bell's Theorem

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2016

Roderich Tumulka
Affiliation:
Rutgers University
Shan Gao
Affiliation:
Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing
Get access

Summary

Abstract

While it is widely agreed that Bell's theorem is an important result in the foundations of quantum physics, there is much disagreement about what exactly Bell's theorem shows. It is agreed that Bell derived a contradiction with experimental facts from some list of assumptions, thus showing that at least one of the assumptions must be wrong; but there is disagreement about what the assumptions were that went into the argument. In this paper, I make a few points in order to help clarify the situation.

Introduction

Different authors have expressed very different views about what Bell's theorem shows about physics. The disagreement concerns particularly the question of which assumptions go into the argument. Since we have to give up one of the assumptions leading to the empirically violated Bell inequality, knowing what the assumptions were is crucial. For example, if author X believes that the argument requires only one assumption, A1, while author Y believes that it requires two, A1 and A2, then X will conclude that A1¬ must be abandoned, while Y will conclude that either A1 or A2 must abandoned, so A1 may well be true in our world if A2 is false. In this paper, I consider several assumptions that have been mentioned in connection with Bell's theorem, and I look into their roles in the proof of Bell's theorem. While I do not say anything here that has never been said before, I hope that my remarks can nevertheless be helpful to some readers.

For the sake of definiteness, the version of the relevant experiment that I will consider involves two spin-1\2 particles, initially in the singlet spin state ψ = 2−1/2(|↑↓ ⟩ − |↓↑ ⟩). Two widely separated experimenters, Alice and Bob, have one particle transported to each of them. At spacelike separation, they each choose a direction in space, represented by the unit vectors a and b, and carry out a quantum measurement of the spin observable in this direction on their particle, (a · σ) ⊗ I and I ⊗ (b · σ), with I the 2 × 2 unit matrix and σ the triple of Paulimatrices. The possible outcomes, A and B, are±1 on each side. Bell's theorem is the statement that under the assumptions we are about to discuss, Bell's inequality holds; quantum theory predicts violations of Bell's inequality, and experiments have confirmed these predictions.

Type
Chapter
Information
Quantum Nonlocality and Reality
50 Years of Bell's Theorem
, pp. 79 - 90
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

[1] J.S., Bell, Six possibleworlds of quantum mechanics, In Proceedings of the Nobel Symposium 65: Possible Worlds in Arts and Sciences, Stockholm, August 11–15, 1986. Reprinted as chapter 20 of [21].
[2] V., Allori, S., Goldstein, R., Tumulka, and N., Zanghi, Many-worlds and Schrödinger's first quantum theory, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 62(1), 1–27 (2011) http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.2211. Google Scholar
[3] J.S., Bell, Bertlmann's socks and the nature of reality. Journal de Physique 42, C2 41–61 (1981). Reprinted as chapter 16 of [21].Google Scholar
[4] J.S., Bell, On the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox, Physics, 1, 195–200 (1964). Reprinted as chapter 2 of [21].Google Scholar
[5] J.S., Bell, The theory of local beables, Epistemological Letters 9, 11 (1976). Reprinted as chapter 7 of [21].Google Scholar
[6] A., Einstein, B., Podolsky, and N., Rosen, Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Physical Review 47, 777–80 (1935).Google Scholar
[7] S., Goldstein, T., Norsen, D.V., Tausk, and N., Zanghi, Bell's theorem, Scholarpedia 6(10), 8378 (2011), www.scholarpedia.org/article/Bell%27s_theorem.Google Scholar
[8] T., Maudlin, What Bell did, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 47, 424010 (2014).Google Scholar
[9] T., Maudlin, Reply to ‘Comment on “What Bell did,”’ Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 47, 424012 (2014).Google Scholar
[10] T., Norsen, Against ‘realism,’ Foundations of Physics 37(3), 311–40 (2007), http:// arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0607057.Google Scholar
[11] T., Norsen, Are there really two different Bell's theorems? www.ijqf.org/groups-2/ bells-theorem/forum/topic/are-there-really-two-different-bells-theorems/.
[12] C.W., Cowan and R., Tumulka, Epistemology of wave function collapse in quantum physics, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 67, 405–34 (2016), http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.0827.Google Scholar
[13] T., Norsen, Einstein's boxes, American Journal of Physics 73(2), 164–76 (2005), http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0404016.Google Scholar
[14] R., Werner, Comment on ‘What Bell did,’ Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 47, 424011 (2014), 90 The Assumptions of Bell's ProofGoogle Scholar
[15] R., Tumulka, A relativistic version of the Ghirardi–Rimini–Weber model. Journal of Statistical Physics 125, 821–40 (2006), http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0406094.Google Scholar
[16] R., Tumulka, Collapse and relativity, in A., Bassi, D., Durr, T., Weber, and N., Zanghi (eds.), Quantum Mechanics: Are There Quantum Jumps? and On the Present Status of Quantum Mechanics, AIP Conference Proceedings 844, 340–52, American Institute of Physics (2006), http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0602208.
[17] T., Maudlin, Quantum Non-locality and Relativity: Metaphysical Intimations of Modern Physics [third ed.], Blackwell, Oxford (2011).
[18] R., Tumulka, Comment on ‘The free will theorem.’ Foundations of Physics 37, 186–97 (2007), http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0611283.Google Scholar
[19] D., Bedingham, D., Durr, G.C., Ghirardi, S., Goldstein, and N., Zanghi, Matter density and relativistic models of wave function collapse, Journal of Statistical Physics 154, 623–31 (2014) http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.1425.Google Scholar
[20] S., Goldstein, D.V., Tausk, R., Tumulka, and N., Zanghi, What does the free will theorem actually prove? Notices of the American Mathematical Society 57(11), 1451–3 (2010), http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.4641. Google Scholar
[21] J.S., Bell, Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1987).

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×