EPR Paradox, Locality and Completeness of Quantum Theory

Kupczyński, Marian

doi:10.1063/1.2827317

Cited by 19 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…16 Several authors pointed out that various proofs of Bell type inequalities use a counterfactual reasoning and suffer from a contextuality loophole . [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38] Therefore we do not doubt that Bell type inequalities can be and are violated in SPCE but the significance of the violation should be confirmed by additional homogeneity tests if it is possible. 15,16…”

Section: S Is a Simple Random Sample If And Only Ifmentioning

confidence: 99%

Operational approach to entanglement and how to certify it

Kupczyński

2016

Int. J. Quantum Inform.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Entangled physical systems are an important resource in quantum information. Some authors claim that in fact all quantum states are entangled. In this paper we show that this claim is incorrect and we discuss in operational way differences existing between separable and entangled states. A sufficient condition for entanglement is the violation of Bell-CHSH-CH inequalities and/or steering inequalities. Since there exist experiments outside the domain of quantum physics violating these inequalities therefore in the operational approach one cannot say that the entanglement is an exclusive quantum phenomenon. We also explain that an unambiguous experimental certification of the entanglement is a difficult task because classical statistical significance tests may not be trusted if sample homogeneity cannot be tested or is not tested carefully enough.

show abstract

Section: S Is a Simple Random Sample If And Only Ifmentioning

confidence: 99%

Operational approach to entanglement and how to certify it

Kupczyński

2016

Int. J. Quantum Inform.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Various probabilistic models used to prove inequalities are not consistent with experimental protocols used in SPCE [37,44]. If contextual character of quantum observables is properly taken into account correlations may be explained in intuitive way [28][29][30][31][32][33][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47]. Moreover many experiments in quantum optics and in neutron interferometry can be simulated event by event in a local and causal way [51][52][53][54].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

EPR paradox, quantum nonlocality and physical reality

Kupczyński

2016

J. Phys.: Conf. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Eighty years ago Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen demonstrated that the instantaneous reduction of wave function, believed to describe completely a pair of entangled physical systems, led to EPR paradox. The paradox disappears in statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics (QM) according to which a wave function describes only an ensemble of identically prepared physical systems. QM predicts strong correlations between the outcomes of measurements performed on different members of EPR pairs in far-away locations. Searching for an intuitive explanation of these correlations John Bell analysed so called local realistic hidden variable models and proved that these models always satisfy Bell inequalities which are violated by the predictions of QM and by experimental data. Several different local models were constructed and inequalities proven. Some eminent physicists concluded that Nature is definitely nonlocal and that it is acting according a new law of nonlocal randomness. According to this law perfectly random, but strongly correlated events, can be produced at the same time at far away locations and a spatio-temporal, local and causal explanation of their occurrence cannot be given. We strongly disagree with this conclusion and in this paper we criticise various finite sample proofs of Bell and CHSH inequalities and so called Quantum Randi Challenges. We also show how one can win so called Bell's game without violating locality of Nature. Nonlocal randomness is inconsistent with local quantum field theory, with standard model in elementary particle physics and with causal laws and adaptive dynamics prevailing in the surrounding us world. The experimental violation of Bell-type inequalities does not prove the nonlocality of Nature but it only confirms the contextual character of quantum observables and gives a strong argument against the point of view according to which the experimental outcomes are produced in irreducible random way. In spite of the fact that we have no doubt that Bell type inequalities are violated we show that because the homogeneity of samples was not tested carefully enough the significance of violation cannot be trusted.

show abstract

“…As we explained in section 2 QM does not predict perfect correlation or anti-correlation of spin projections [29,[34][35][36][37][38][39][40]. Therefore if Bob and Alice decide before the experiment to choose the same experimental setting when Alice obtains a click on one of her detectors, in a particular time-window, she does not know with certainty whether Bob registers a click on his detector at the same time window.…”

Section: Entanglement and Instantaneous Influencesmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…If hidden variables depend on the settings then Bell-type inequalities may not be proven [29,[34][35][36][37][38][39][40]. Already in 1862, George Boole showed that whatever process generates a data set S of triples of variables (S 1 ,S 2 ,S 3 ) where S i = ±1, then the averages of products of pairs S i S j in a data set S have to satisfy the equalities very similar to Bell inequalities [52,55,56].…”

Section: Kolmogorov Models and Experimental Protocolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Can we close the Bohr–Einstein quantum debate?

Kupczyński¹

2017

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent experiments allow one to conclude that Bell-type inequalities are indeed violated; thus, it is important to understand what this means and how we can explain the existence of strong correlations between outcomes of distant measurements. Do we have to announce that Einstein was wrong, Nature is non-local and non-local correlations are produced due to quantum magic and emerge, somehow, from outside space-time? Fortunately, such conclusions are unfounded because, if supplementary parameters describing measuring instruments are correctly incorporated in a theoretical model, then Bell-type inequalities may not be proved. We construct a simple probabilistic model allowing these correlations to be explained in a locally causal way. In our model, measurement outcomes are neither predetermined nor produced in an irreducibly random way. We explain why, contrary to the general belief, the introduction of setting-dependent parameters does not restrict experimenters' freedom of choice. Since the violation of Bell-type inequalities does not allow the conclusion that Nature is non-local and that quantum theory is complete, the Bohr-Einstein quantum debate may not be closed. The continuation of this debate is important not only for a better understanding of Nature but also for various practical applications of quantum phenomena.This article is part of the themed issue 'Second quantum revolution: foundational questions'.

show abstract

EPR Paradox, Locality and Completeness of Quantum Theory

Cited by 19 publications

References 57 publications

Operational approach to entanglement and how to certify it

Operational approach to entanglement and how to certify it

EPR paradox, quantum nonlocality and physical reality

Can we close the Bohr–Einstein quantum debate?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About