- #1
Gerenuk
- 1,034
- 5
I've just listened to an online lecture where Susskind explained Bell's inequality
()
Basically he shows that classically
[tex]
A\cap \overline{B}+B\cap \overline{C}\geq A\cap\overline{C}
[/tex]
Then he uses spin measurements with 0°, 45°, 90° to the z-axis for A, B, C to measure spins of an electron singlet. The important point is that he uses the fact that measuring a negative result A on particle 1 corresponds identically to a positive outcome on particle 2. This assumption is essential, otherwise he couldn't do all three combinations of measurement on separate particles. For me that seems to be a logical flaw if you really want to disprove hidden variable theories.
Why can't you assume that there is a theory that predicts all the same outcomes for the observables just as quantum mechanics, but is local?
The above argument is only valid if you assume
[tex]\overline{C}_1\equiv C_2[/itex]
(subscripts denote on which particle it is measured)
and a new theory might not imply that, even though it still predicts all the same observables as QM. To me it seems like cheating to modify Bell inequality to
[tex]
A_1\cap \overline{B}_2+B_2\cap \overline{C}_1\geq A_1\cap C_2
[/tex]
and be surprised why it's violated.
Or is there another version of Bell measurements where all combinations of measurements are really repeated and free from "conversions"?
Otherwise an alternative framework which predicts all the same outcomes as QM might well be local. Or is there a non-existence prove of that?
()
Basically he shows that classically
[tex]
A\cap \overline{B}+B\cap \overline{C}\geq A\cap\overline{C}
[/tex]
Then he uses spin measurements with 0°, 45°, 90° to the z-axis for A, B, C to measure spins of an electron singlet. The important point is that he uses the fact that measuring a negative result A on particle 1 corresponds identically to a positive outcome on particle 2. This assumption is essential, otherwise he couldn't do all three combinations of measurement on separate particles. For me that seems to be a logical flaw if you really want to disprove hidden variable theories.
Why can't you assume that there is a theory that predicts all the same outcomes for the observables just as quantum mechanics, but is local?
The above argument is only valid if you assume
[tex]\overline{C}_1\equiv C_2[/itex]
(subscripts denote on which particle it is measured)
and a new theory might not imply that, even though it still predicts all the same observables as QM. To me it seems like cheating to modify Bell inequality to
[tex]
A_1\cap \overline{B}_2+B_2\cap \overline{C}_1\geq A_1\cap C_2
[/tex]
and be surprised why it's violated.
Or is there another version of Bell measurements where all combinations of measurements are really repeated and free from "conversions"?
Otherwise an alternative framework which predicts all the same outcomes as QM might well be local. Or is there a non-existence prove of that?
Last edited by a moderator: