Unconditional quantum correlations do not violate Bell's inequality

DOI10.1007/S10701-015-9930-5MaRDI QIDQ892924zbMATH OpenOpenAlexFDO

Authors Andrei Khrennikov

Publication date 12 November 2015

Published in Foundations of Physics (Search for Journal in Brave)

Full work available at URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1503.08016

zbMATH Keywords

Bell's inequalityconditional and unconditional correlationsquantum and classical correlationsquantum measurement theoryrandom generators

Mathematics Subject Classification ID

Measures of association (correlation, canonical correlation, etc.) (62H20) General and philosophical questions in quantum theory (81P05) Quantum measurement theory, state operations, state preparations (81P15) Quantum coherence, entanglement, quantum correlations (81P40)

Abstract: In this paper I demonstrate that the quantum correlations of polarization (or spin) observables used in Bell's argument against local realism have to be interpreted as {it conditional} quantum correlations. By taking into account additional sources of randomness in Bell's type experiments, i.e., supplementary to source randomness, I calculate (in the standard quantum formalism) the complete quantum correlations. The main message of the quantum theory of measurement (due to von Neumann) is that complete correlations can be essentially smaller than the conditional ones. Additional sources of randomness diminish correlations. One can say another way around: transition from unconditional correlations to conditional can increase them essentially. This is true for both classical and quantum probability. The final remark is that classical conditional correlations do not satisfy Bell's inequality. Thus we met the following {it conditional probability dilemma}: either to use the conditional quantum probabilities, as was done by Bell and others, or complete quantum correlations. However, in the first case the corresponding classical conditional correlations need not satisfy Bell's inequality and in the second case the complete quantum correlations satisfy Bell's inequality. Thus in neither case we have a problem of mismatching of classical and quantum correlations. It seems that the whole structure of Bell's argument was based on unacceptable identification of conditional quantum correlations with unconditional classical correlations.

Recommendations

• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 5873100
• Bell inequalities as constraints on unmeasurable correlations
• Nonlocality as well as rejection of realism are only sufficient (but non-necessary!) conditions for violation of Bell's inequality
• The connection between Bell's inequalities based on probabilities and those based on correlations
• On the three types of Bell's inequalities

Cites work

• Bell-Boole inequality: nonlocality or probabilistic incompatibility of random variables?
• CHSH inequality: quantum probabilities as classical conditional probabilities
• Consistent Quantum Theory
• Contextual approach to quantum formalism
• Einstein Was Right!
• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 5012832 (Why is no real title available?)
• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 1418766 (Why is no real title available?)
• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 5589493 (Why is no real title available?)
• Number partitioning on a quantum computer
• Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics

Cited in

(6)

• Bell's theorem without inequalities and without unspeakable information
• Are quantum correlations genuinely quantum?
• Outline of a generalization and a reinterpretation of quantum mechanics recovering objectivity
• Bell inequalities as constraints on unmeasurable correlations
• Replacing nothing with something special: contextuality-by-default and dummy measurements
• The quantum world is not built up from correlations

This page was built for publication: Unconditional quantum correlations do not violate Bell's inequality

Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q892924)