Advertisement

Foundations of Physics

, Volume 35, Issue 12, pp 2051–2072 | Cite as

“Local Realism”, Bell’s Theorem and Quantum “Locally Realistic” Inequalities

  • Elena R. Loubenets
Article

Based on the new general framework for the probabilistic description of experiments, introduced in [E.R. Loubenets, Research Report No 8, MaPhySto, University of Aarhus, Denmark (2003); Proceedings Conference “Quantum Theory, Reconsideration of Foundations”, Ser. Math. Modeling, Vol. 10 (University Press, Vaxjo, 2004), pp. 365–385], we analyze in mathematical terms the link between the validity of Bell-type inequalities under joint experiments upon a system of any type and the physical concept of “local realism”. We prove that the violation of Bell-type inequalities in the quantum case has no connection with the violation of “local realism”. In a general setting, we formulate in mathematical terms the condition on “local realism” under a joint experiment and consider examples of quantum “locally realistic” joint experiments. We, in particular, show that quantum joint experiments of the Alice/Bob type are “locally realistic”. For an arbitrary bipartite quantum state, we derive quantum analogs of the original Bell inequality. In view of our results, we argue that the violation of Bell-type inequalities in the quantum case cannot be a valid argument in the discussion on locality or non-locality of quantum interactions.

Keywords

information states joint experiments Bell-type inequalities locality 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bell, J.S. 1964Physics1195Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bell, J.S. 1987Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum MechanicsUniversity PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Clauser, J.F., Horne, M.A., Shimony, A., Holt, R.A. 1969Phys Rev Lett.23880CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shiryaev, A.N. 1984ProbabilitySpringerNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Peres, A. 1993Quantum Theory: Concepts and MethodsKluwer AcademicDordrechtGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Loubenets, E.R. 2003Research Report No 8, MaPhyStoUniversity of AarhusDenmarkGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Loubenets E.R. “General framework for the probabilistic description of experiments” Proc. Conf. “Quantum Theory, Reconsideration of Foundations”, June 2003. Ed. A. Khrennikov, Ser. Math. Modeling, Vol. 10, (University Press, Vaxjo, 2004), pp. 365–385Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Davies, E.B. 1976Quantum Theory of Open SystemsAcademicLondonGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Holevo A.S., Probabilistic and Statistical Aspects of Quantum Theory (Nauka, Moscow 1980. English translation: (North Holland, Amsterdam, 1982).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Busch, P., Grabovski, M., Lahti, P.J. 1995Operational Quantum PhysicsSpringerNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Werner, R.F. 1989Phys Rev A.404277CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    E. R. Loubenets, Phys. Rev. A 69, 042102 (2004). Also in Virtual J. Quantum Inform. 4, 4 (2004).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematical SciencesUniversity of AarhusAarhusDenmark

Personalised recommendations