Isn’t Bell’s probability density for hidden variables too restrictive?

In summary, Bell's restriction on the dependency of the hidden variable distribution on the vectors a and b is crucial for deriving his inequality. This assumption is justified because it allows for conclusions about theories with this property, and the contrapositive of Bell's Theorem states that any theory that predicts violations of the inequality must include this dependency. This is why the locality requirement leads to this restriction and why other principles may also be involved.
  • #1
nekkert llup
2
0
J.S. Bell (Physics Vol.1, No. 3, 1964) excludes from consideration any distribution [tex] \rho [/tex] of the hidden variable [tex] \lambda [/tex] that formally depends on the vectors [tex] a [/tex] and [tex] b [/tex], except if [tex] \rho ( \lambda ,a,b) = \rho ' ( \lambda ,a) \rho ' ( \lambda ,b)[/tex] i.e. if the distribution can be factored in a part depending on [tex] a [/tex] and not on [tex] b [/tex] and another part depending on [tex] b [/tex] and not on [tex] a [/tex]. Otherwise he could not derive (22). On precisely which grounds did Bell introduce this restriction? For example, does the locality requirement lead to this restriction? How?Are other principles involved?

Edit: I made an unforgivable error: According to Bell, neither [tex] \lambda [/tex] itself nor its density distribution [tex] \rho ( \lambda ) [/tex] may depend on [tex] a [/tex] and [tex] b [/tex]. The question is still the same: why not?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Bell makes this no-dependency assumption because he's deriving a result about theories that have this property. It's analogous to drawing conclusions about the properties of rational numbers starting from the assumption that a rational number can be written as the ratio of two integers; the assumption is "too restrictive" in the sense that there are numbers that can't be written in that form, but that doesn't mean that the assumption is not justified, it means that the conclusion only applies to numbers that can be written in that form.

If a theory contains no such dependency on ##a## and ##b##, then it must obey his inequality. That's Bell's Theorem.

What makes this an interesting result is the contrapositive: if a theory predicts violations of the inequality, then it must include such a dependency. Quantum mechanics makes such a prediction, therefore any theory that agrees with QM must include that dependency.
 
  • #3
Please when you write latex symbols in text, start and end them with ##.
 

Related to Isn’t Bell’s probability density for hidden variables too restrictive?

1. What is Bell's probability density for hidden variables?

Bell's probability density for hidden variables is a mathematical formula used in quantum mechanics to describe the probability distribution of variables that are hidden from observation. It is often used to explain the behavior of particles in quantum systems.

2. How is Bell's probability density different from other probability distributions?

Bell's probability density is different from other probability distributions because it takes into account hidden variables, rather than solely relying on observable variables. This allows for a more complete description of the behavior of particles in quantum systems.

3. Why is Bell's probability density considered restrictive?

Bell's probability density is considered restrictive because it makes certain assumptions about the nature of hidden variables. For example, it assumes that these variables are local and deterministic, which may not always be the case in quantum systems.

4. Can Bell's probability density be used to accurately predict the behavior of particles in all quantum systems?

No, Bell's probability density cannot be used to accurately predict the behavior of particles in all quantum systems. It is based on certain assumptions and may not apply to all types of quantum systems. In some cases, other approaches such as quantum field theory may be necessary.

5. How does Bell's probability density impact our understanding of quantum mechanics?

Bell's probability density has had a significant impact on our understanding of quantum mechanics. It has led to the development of new theories and experiments that have helped to further our understanding of the behavior of particles in quantum systems. It has also sparked debates and discussions about the nature of reality and the role of hidden variables in quantum mechanics.

Similar threads

Replies
93
Views
5K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
10
Replies
333
Views
12K
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
22
Views
32K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
37
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
82
Views
8K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Back
Top