The Contextuality Loophole is Fatal for the Derivation of Bell Inequalities: Reply to a Comment by I. Schmelzer

Nieuwenhuizen, Th. M.; Kupczyński, Marian

doi:10.1007/s10701-017-0062-y

Cited by 22 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…LRHVM try to describe various incompatible random experiments using a joint probability distribution on a unique probability space what is very restrictive, They neglect an active role of measuring instruments and suffer from theoretical contextuality loophole which cannot be closed [47][48][49]. If supplementary parameters describing measuring instruments are correctly introduced Bell-type inequalities may not be proven and probabilistic models contain enough free parameters to fit data from any spin polarization correlation experiment (SPCE).…”

Section: Causally Local Explanation Of Quantum Correlationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is Einsteinian no-signalling violated in Bell tests?

Kupczyński

2017

Open Physics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Relativistic invariance is a physical law verified in several domains of physics. The impossibility of faster than light influences is not questioned by quantum theory. In quantum electrodynamics, in quantum field theory and in the standard model relativistic invariance is incorporated by construction. Quantum mechanics predicts strong long range correlations between outcomes of spin projection measurements performed in distant laboratories. In spite of these strong correlations marginal probability distributions should not depend on what was measured in the other laboratory what is called shortly: nonsignalling. In several experiments, performed to test various Bell-type inequalities, some unexplained dependence of empirical marginal probability distributions on distant settings was observed . In this paper we demonstrate how a particular identification and selection procedure of paired distant outcomes is the most probable cause for this apparent violation of no-signalling principle. Thus this unexpected setting dependence does not prove the existence of superluminal influences and Einsteinian no-signalling principle has to be tested differently in dedicated experiments. We propose a detailed protocol telling how such experiments should be designed in order to be conclusive. We also explain how magical quantum correlations may be explained in a locally causal way.Keywords: EPR paradox and Bell inequalities, parameter independence and non-signalling, new unambiguous tests of Einsteinian no-signalling, quantum nonlocality demystified, causally local explanation of quantum correlations

show abstract

Section: Causally Local Explanation Of Quantum Correlationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is Einsteinian no-signalling violated in Bell tests?

Kupczyński

2017

Open Physics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…More fundamentally, some of those who challenge the appropriateness of mathematical or physical assumptions (as described in Sect. 5.5 above) deny that the inequalities indicate anything significant about either locality or realism [22, § 9.3.2] [166,342,352]. Another fundamental concern is that many definitions of, or assumptions about, realism used in discussing Bell-type inequalities appear to be inconsistent with what are otherwise known to be core features of quantum theory [ .…”

Section: Bell Inequalities: Few Clear Implications From Experimental mentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding quantum mechanics: a review and synthesis in precise language

Drummond¹

2019

Open Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review, of the understanding of quantum mechanics, is broad in scope, and aims to reflect enough of the literature to be representative of the current state of the subject. To enhance clarity, the main findings are presented in the form of a coherent synthesis of the reviewed sources. The review highlights core characteristics of quantum mechanics. One is statistical balance in the collective response of an ensemble of identically prepared systems, to differing measurement types. Another is that states are mathematical terms prescribing probability aspects of future events, relating to an ensemble of systems, in various situations. These characteristics then yield helpful insights on entanglement, measurement, and widely-discussed experiments and analyses. The review concludes by considering how these insights are supported, illustrated and developed by some specific approaches to understanding quantum mechanics. The review uses non-mathematical language precisely (terms defined) and rigorously (consistent meanings), and uses only such language. A theory more descriptive of independent reality than is quantum mechanics may yet be possible. One step in the pursuit of such a theory is to reach greater consensus on how to understand quantum mechanics. This review aims to contribute to achieving that greater consensus, and so to that pursuit.

show abstract

“…Unlike, for example, GHZ-type experiments, where contradictions between classical and quantum probability theory are already observed in a single run of the experiment, the CHSH-Bell procedure requires the comparison of experiments conducted in different, incompatible contexts, which is at the root of a class of objections for which one of us has introduced the term "Contextuality loophole"; several closely related ideas have been treated in the literature [29,30,[39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51]. The validity of these objections has, however, also been disputed [52][53][54]; for a reply, see [55]. Finally, it may be remarked that some objections against GHZ-type experiments have also been reported, and that certain local realist approaches, such as superdeterminism, can not be ruled out [23,39,[56][57][58][59].…”

Section: The Chsh Inequalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Simultaneous measurement of non-commuting observables in entangled systems

Heusden

Nieuwenhuizen

2019

Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In an EPR setup, simultaneous measurement of two noncommuting observables is considered at station A and, possibly after a time delay, at station B. At each station one apparatus measures the z-component of a spin, while a second one measures the x-component of the same spin simultaneously. The dynamics of the measurements is solved explicitly. It is shown that no violations of Bell inequalities occur in Bell-like correlation experiments, and that, in fact, experiments of this type are subject to even stronger constraints. This is caused by the mutual influence of the two apparatuses coupled to the same spin, an effect which occurs at both stations.

show abstract

The Contextuality Loophole is Fatal for the Derivation of Bell Inequalities: Reply to a Comment by I. Schmelzer

Cited by 22 publications

References 30 publications

Is Einsteinian no-signalling violated in Bell tests?

Is Einsteinian no-signalling violated in Bell tests?

Understanding quantum mechanics: a review and synthesis in precise language

Simultaneous measurement of non-commuting observables in entangled systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About