Bell's theorem

Bell's theorem is a no-go theorem famous for drawing an important line in the sand between quantum mechanics (QM) and the world as we know it classically. In its simplest form, ell!s theorem states"#$% &o physical theory of local hidden 'ariables can e'er reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics. (hen introduced in $)*+, the philosophical implications of the new quantum theory were troubling to many prominent physicists of the day, including ,lbert -instein. In a well known $)./ paper, -instein and co-authors oris 0odolsky and &athan 1osen (collecti'ely -01) demonstrated by a parado2 that QM was incomplete. 3his pro'ided hope that a more complete (and less troubling) theory might one day be disco'ered. ut that conclusion rested on the seemingly reasonable assumptions of locality and realism (together called 4local realism4 or 4local hidden 'ariables4, often interchangeably). In the 'ernacular of -instein" locality meant no instantaneous (4spooky4) action at a distance5 realism meant the moon is there e'en when not being obser'ed. 3hese assumptions were hotly debated within the physics community, notably between &obel laureates -instein and &iels ohr. In his groundbreaking $)67 paper, 48n the -instein 0odolsky 1osen parado24, physicist 9ohn :tewart ell presented an analogy (based on spin measurements on pairs of entangled electrons) to -01!s hypothetical parado2. ;sing their reasoning, he said, a choice of measurement setting here should not affect the outcome of a measurement there (and 'ice 'ersa). ,fter pro'iding a mathematical formulation of locality and realism based on this, he showed specific cases where this would be inconsistent with the predictions of QM. In e2perimental tests following ell!s e2ample, now using quantum entanglement of photons instead of electrons, 9ohn <lauser and :tuart =reedman ($)+*) and ,lain ,spect et al. ($)>$) con'incingly demonstrated that the predictions of QM are correct in this regard. (hile this does not demonstrate QM is complete, one is forced to re?ect locality, realism, or the possibility of nondeterminism (the last leads to alternati'e superdeterministic theories, none of which has yet replicated the predictions of QM#citation needed%). <ornell solid-state physicist @a'id Mermin has described the 'arious appraisals of the importance of ell!s theorem within the physics community as ranging from 4indifference4 to 4wild e2tra'agance4.#*% Aawrence erkeley particle physicist Benry :tapp declared" C ellDs theorem is the most profound disco'ery of science.E.#.% ellDs theorem states that the concept of local realism, fa'oured by -instein,#7% yields predictions that disagree with those of quantum mechanical theory. ecause numerous e2periments agree with the predictions of quantum mechanical theory, and show correlations that are, according to ell, greater than could be e2plained by local hidden 'ariables, the e2perimental results ha'e been taken by many as refuting the concept of local realism as an e2planation of the physical phenomena under test. =or a hidden 'ariable theory, if ell!s conditions are correct, then the

results which are in agreement with quantum mechanical theory appear to e'idence superluminal effects, in contradiction to the principle of locality.

Illustration of ell test for particles such as photons. , source produces a singlet pair, one particle is sent to one location, and the other is sent to another location. , measurement of the entangled property is performed at 'arious angles at each location. 3he theorem applies to any quantum system of two entangled qubits. 3he most common e2amples concern systems of particles that are entangled in spin or polariFation. =ollowing the argument in the -insteinG0odolskyG1osen (-01) parado2 paper (but using the e2ample of spin, as in @a'id ohm!s 'ersion of the -01 argument#/%#6%), ell considered an e2periment in which there are 4a pair of spin one-half particles formed somehow in the singlet spin state and mo'ing freely in opposite directions.4#/% 3he two particles tra'el away from each other to two distant locations, at which measurements of spin are performed, along a2es that are independently chosen. -ach measurement yields a result of either spin-up (H) or spin-down (I)5 it means, spin in the positi'e or negati'e direction of the chosen a2is. 3he probability of the same result being obtained at the two locations 'aries, depending on the relati'e angles at which the two spin measurements are made, and is sub?ect to some uncertainty for all relati'e angles other than perfectly parallel alignments (JK or $>JK). ell!s theorem thus applies only to the statistical results from many trials of the e2periment. =or this reason, the terms 4correlated4, 4anti-correlated4, and 4uncorrelated4 apply only to sets of se'eral pairs of measurements. 3he correlation of two binary 'ariables can be defined as the a'erage of the product of the two outcomes of the pairs of measurements. 3his definition is in accordance with the definition of co'ariance between real-'alued random 'ariables. ;sing this definition, if the pairs of outcomes are always the same, the correlation will be H$, no matter which same 'alue each pair of outcomes ha'e. If the pairs of outcomes are always opposite, the correlation will be -$. =inally, if the pairs of outcomes are perfectly balanced, being /JL of the times in accordance, and /JL of the times opposite, the correlation, being an a'erage, will be J. Measuring the spin of these entangled particles along anti-parallel directions, i.e. along the same a2is but in opposite directions, the set of all results will be correlated. 8n the other hand, if the measurements are performed along parallel directions they will always yield opposite results, and the set of measurements will show perfect anti-correlation. =inally, measurement at perpendicular directions will ha'e a /JL chance of matching, and the total set of measurement will be uncorrelated. 3hese basic cases are illustrated in the table below.

Anti-parallel Pair 1 Pair 2 Pair 3 Pair 4 Pair n ,lice, JK H I H H MI ob, $>JK H I H H MI Correlation = ( +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 Parallel Pair 1 Pair 2 Pair 3 Pair 4 Pair n ,lice, JK H I I H MH ob, JK or .6JK I H H I MI Correlation = ( -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 Orthogonal Pair 1 Pair 2 Pair 3 Pair 4 Pair n ,lice, JK H I H I MI ob, )JK or *+JK I I H H MI Correlation = ( 1 +1 +1 1 +1

) / n = +1
($JJL identical)

) / n = -1
($JJL opposite)

)/n=!
(/JL identical, /JL opposite)

3he local realist prediction (solid lines) for quantum correlation for spin (assuming $JJL detector efficiency). 3he quantum mechanical prediction is the dotted (cosine) cur'e. In this plot the angle is taken between the positi'e direction of one a2is and the negati'e direction of the other a2is. (ith the measurements oriented at intermediate angles between these basic cases, the e2istence of local hidden 'ariables could agree with a linear dependence of the correlation in the angle but, according to ell inequality, could not agree with the dependence predicted by quantum mechanical theory, namely, that the correlation is the cosine of the angle. -2perimental results match the cur'e predicted by quantum mechanics.#$% ell achie'ed his breakthrough by first deri'ing the results that he posits local realism would necessarily yield. ell claimed that, without making any assumptions about the specific form of the theory beyond requirements of basic consistency, the mathematical inequality he disco'ered was clearly at odds with the results (described abo'e) predicted by quantum mechanics and, later, obser'ed e2perimentally. If correct, ell!s theorem appears to rule out local hidden

'ariables as a 'iable e2planation of quantum mechanics (though it still lea'es the door open for non-local hidden 'ariables). ell concluded" In a theory in which parameters are added to quantum mechanics to determine the results of indi'idual measurements, without changing the statistical predictions, there must be a mechanism whereby the setting of one measuring de'ice can influence the reading of another instrument, howe'er remote. Moreo'er, the signal in'ol'ed must propagate instantaneously, so that a theory could not be AorentF in'ariant. N#/% 8'er the years, ell!s theorem has undergone a wide 'ariety of e2perimental tests. Bowe'er, 'arious common deficiencies in the testing of the theorem ha'e been identified, including the detection loophole#+% and the communication loophole.#+% 8'er the years e2periments ha'e been gradually impro'ed to better address these loopholes, but no e2periment to date has simultaneously fully addressed all of them.#+% Bowe'er, it is generally considered unreasonable that such an e2periment, if conducted, would gi'e results that are inconsistent with the prior e2periments. =or e2ample, ,nthony Aeggett has commented" #(hile% no single e2isting e2periment has simultaneously blocked all of the so-called OOloopholesDD, each one of those loopholes has been blocked in at least one e2periment. 3hus, to maintain a local hidden 'ariable theory in the face of the e2isting e2periments would appear to require belief in a 'ery peculiar conspiracy of nature.#>% 3o date, ell!s theorem is generally regarded as supported by a substantial body of e'idence and is treated as a fundamental principle of physics in mainstream quantum mechanics te2tbooks.#)%#$J%

"mportan#e o$ the theorem

Bell's theorem, deri'ed in his seminal $)67 paper titled On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox,#/% has been called, on the assumption that the theory is correct, 4the most profound in science4.#$$% 0erhaps of equal importance is ell!s deliberate effort to encourage and bring legitimacy to work on the completeness issues, which had fallen into disrepute.#$*% Aater in his life, ell e2pressed his hope that such work would 4continue to inspire those who suspect that what is pro'ed by the impossibility proofs is lack of imagination.4#$.% 3he title of ell!s seminal article refers to the famous paper by -instein, 0odolsky and 1osen#$7% that challenged the completeness of quantum mechanics. In his paper, ell started from the same two assumptions as did -01, namely (i) reality (that microscopic ob?ects ha'e real properties determining the outcomes of quantum mechanical measurements), and (ii) locality (that reality in one location is not influenced by measurements performed simultaneously at a distant location). ell was able to deri'e from those two assumptions an important result, namely Bell's ine%&alit', implying that at least one of the assumptions must be false. In two respects ell!s $)67 paper was a step forward compared to the -01 paper" firstly, it considered more hidden 'ariables than merely the element of physical reality in the -01 paper5

and ell!s inequality was, in part, liable to be e2perimentally tested, thus raising the possibility of testing the local realism hypothesis. Aimitations on such tests to date are noted below. (hereas ell!s paper deals only with deterministic hidden 'ariable theories, ell!s theorem was later generaliFed to stochastic theories#$/% as well, and it was also realised#$6% that the theorem is not so much about hidden 'ariables as about the outcomes of measurements which could ha'e been done instead of the one actually performed. -2istence of these 'ariables is called the assumption of realism, or the assumption of counterfactual definiteness. ,fter the -01 paper, quantum mechanics was in an unsatisfactory position" either it was incomplete, in the sense that it failed to account for some elements of physical reality, or it 'iolated the principle of a finite propagation speed of physical effects. In a modified 'ersion of the -01 thought e2periment, two hypothetical obser'ers, now commonly referred to as Alice and Bob, perform independent measurements of spin on a pair of electrons, prepared at a source in a special state called a spin singlet state. It is the conclusion of -01 that once ,lice measures spin in one direction (e.g. on the x a2is), ob!s measurement in that direction is determined with certainty, as being the opposite outcome to that of ,lice, whereas immediately before ,lice!s measurement ob!s outcome was only statistically determined (i.e., was only a probability, not a certainty)5 thus, either the spin in each direction is an element of physical reality, or the effects tra'el from ,lice to ob instantly. In QM, predictions are formulated in terms of probabilities N for e2ample, the probability that an electron will be detected in a particular place, or the probability that its spin is up or down. 3he idea persisted, howe'er, that the electron in fact has a (e$inite position and spin, and that QM!s weakness is its inability to predict those 'alues precisely. 3he possibility e2isted that some unknown theory, such as a hidden variables theory, might be able to predict those quantities e2actly, while at the same time also being in complete agreement with the probabilities predicted by QM. If such a hidden variables theory e2ists, then because the hidden 'ariables are not described by QM the latter would be an incomplete theory. 3wo assumptions dro'e the desire to find a local realist theory" $. 8b?ects ha'e a definite state that determines the 'alues of all other measurable properties, such as position and momentum. 2. -ffects of local actions, such as measurements, cannot tra'el faster than the speed of light (in consequence of special relati'ity). 3hus if obser'ers are sufficiently far apart, a measurement made by one can ha'e no effect on a measurement made by the other. In the form of local realism used by ell, the predictions of the theory result from the application of classical probability theory to an underlying parameter space. y a simple argument based on classical probability, he showed that correlations between measurements are bounded in a way that is 'iolated by QM. ell!s theorem seemed to put an end to local realism. 3his is because, if the theorem is correct, then either quantum mechanics or local realism is wrong, as they are mutually e2clusi'e. 3he paper noted that 4it requires little imagination to en'isage the e2periments in'ol'ed actually being made4,#/% to determine which of them is correct. It took many years and many

impro'ements in technology to perform tests along the lines ell en'isaged. 3he tests are, in theory, capable of showing whether local hidden 'ariable theories as envisaged by Bell accurately predict e2perimental results. 3he tests are not capable of determining whether ell has accurately described all local hidden 'ariable theories. 3he ell test e2periments ha'e been interpreted as showing that the ell inequalities are 'iolated in fa'our of QM. 3he no-communication theorem shows that the obser'ers cannot use the effect to communicate (classical) information to each other faster than the speed of light, but the Ofair samplingD and Ono enhancementD assumptions require more careful consideration (below). 3hat interpretation follows not from any clear demonstration of super-luminal communication in the tests themsel'es, but solely from ell!s theory that the correctness of the quantum predictions necessarily precludes any local hidden-'ariable theory. If that theoretical contention is not correct, then the 4tests4 of ell!s theory to date do not show anything either way about the local or non-local nature of the phenomena.

Bell ine%&alities
ell inequalities concern measurements made by obser'ers on pairs of particles that ha'e interacted and then separated. ,ccording to quantum mechanics they are entangled, while local realism would limit the correlation of subsequent measurements of the particles. @ifferent authors subsequently deri'ed inequalities similar to ellPs original inequality, and these are here collecti'ely termed Bell inequalities. ,ll ell inequalities describe e2periments in which the predicted result from quantum entanglement differs from that flowing from local realism. 3he inequalities assume that each quantum-le'el ob?ect has a well-defined state that accounts for all its measurable properties and that distant ob?ects do not e2change information faster than the speed of light. 3hese well-defined states are typically called hidden variables, the properties that -instein posited when he stated his famous ob?ection to quantum mechanics" 4Qod does not play dice.4 ell showed that under quantum mechanics, the mathematics of which contains no local hidden 'ariables, the ell inequalities can ne'ertheless be 'iolated" the properties of a particle are not clear, but may be correlated with those of another particle due to quantum entanglement, allowing their state to be well defined only after a measurement is made on either particle. 3hat restriction agrees with the Beisenberg uncertainty principle, a fundamental concept in quantum mechanics. In ell!s words" 3heoretical physicists li'e in a classical world, looking out into a quantum-mechanical world. 3he latter we describe only sub?ecti'ely, in terms of procedures and results in our classical domain. (M) &ow nobody knows ?ust where the boundary between the classical and the quantum domain is situated. (M) More plausible to me is that we will find that there is no boundary. 3he wa'e functions would pro'e to be a pro'isional or incomplete description of the quantummechanical part. It is this possibility, of a homogeneous account of the world, which is for me the chief moti'ation of the study of the so-called 4hidden 'ariable4 possibility.

(M) , second moti'ation is connected with the statistical character of quantum-mechanical predictions. 8nce the incompleteness of the wa'e function description is suspected, it can be con?ectured that random statistical fluctuations are determined by the e2tra 4hidden4 'ariables N 4hidden4 because at this stage we can only con?ecture their e2istence and certainly cannot control them. (M) , third moti'ation is in the peculiar character of some quantum-mechanical predictions, which seem almost to cry out for a hidden 'ariable interpretation. 3his is the famous argument of -instein, 0odolsky and 1osen. (M) (e will find, in fact, that no local deterministic hidden'ariable theory can reproduce all the e2perimental predictions of quantum mechanics. 3his opens the possibility of bringing the question into the e2perimental domain, by trying to appro2imate as well as possible the idealiFed situations in which local hidden 'ariables and quantum mechanics cannot agree.#$+% In probability theory, repeated measurements of system properties can be regarded as repeated sampling of random 'ariables. In ell!s e2periment, ,lice can choose a detector setting to measure either or and ob can choose a detector setting to measure either or . Measurements of ,lice and ob may be somehow correlated with each other, but the ell inequalities say that if the correlation stems from local random 'ariables, there is a limit to the amount of correlation one might e2pect to see.

Original Bell's ine%&alit'

3he original inequality that ell deri'ed was"#/%

where is the 4correlation4 of the particle pairs and A, B and settings of the apparatus. 3his inequality is not used in practice. =or one thing, it is true only for genuinely 4two-outcome4 systems, not for the 4three-outcome4 ones (with possible outcomes of Fero as well as H$ and I$) encountered in real e2periments. =or another, it applies only to a 'ery restricted set of hidden 'ariable theories, namely those for which the outcomes on both sides of the e2periment are always e2actly anticorrelated when the analysers are parallel, in agreement with the quantum mechanical prediction. &e'ertheless, a simple limit of ell!s inequality has the 'irtue of being quite intuiti'e. If the result of three different statistical coin-flips ,, , and < ha'e the property that" $. , and are the same (both heads or both tails) ))L of the time *. and < are the same ))L of the time, then , and < are the same at least )>L of the time. 3he number of mismatches between , and ($R$JJ) plus the number of mismatches between and < ($R$JJ) are together the maximum possible number of mismatches between , and < (a simple ooleG=rSchet inequality).

In quantum mechanics, howe'er, by letting ,, , and < be the 'alues of the spin of two entangled particles measured relati'e to some a2is at J degrees, ! degrees, and *! degrees respecti'ely, the o'erlap of the wa'efunction between the different angles is proportional to cos("!) T $G"*!*R*. 3he probability that , and gi'e the same answer is $G#*, where # is proportional to !. 3his is also the probability that B and gi'e the same answer. ut A and are the same $ G (*#)* of the time. <hoosing the angle so that #UJ.$, A and B are ))L correlated, B and are ))L correlated, but now A and are only )6L correlatedV Imagine that two entangled particles in a spin singlet are shot out to two distant locations, and the spins of both are measured in the direction A. 3he spins are $JJL correlated (actually, anticorrelated, but for this argument that is equi'alent). 3he same is true if both spins are measured in directions B or . It is safe to conclude that any hidden 'ariables that determine the A, B, and measurements in the two particles are $JJL correlated, and can be used interchangeably. If A is measured on one particle and B on the other, the correlation between them is ))L. If B is measured on one and on the other, the correlation is ))L. 3his allows us to conclude that the hidden 'ariables determining A and B are ))L correlated, and B and are ))L correlated. ut if A is measured in one particle and in the other, the quantum mechanical results are only )6L correlated, which is a contradiction. 3his intuiti'e formulation is due to @a'id Mermin, while the small-angle limit is emphasiFed in ell!s original article.

C)*) ine%&alit'
Main article" <B:B inequality In addition to ell!s original inequality,#/% the form gi'en by 9ohn <lauser, Michael Borne, ,bner :himony and 1. ,. Bolt,#$>% (the <B:B form) is especially important,#$>% as it gi'es classical limits to the e2pected correlation for the abo'e e2periment conducted by ,lice and ob"

where C denotes correlation. <orrelation of obser'ables $, % is defined as

(here represents the e2pected or a'erage 'alue of . 3his is a non-normaliFed form of the correlation coefficient considered in statistics (see Quantum correlation).

+o#al realism
3o formulate ell!s theorem, we formaliFe local realism as follows"

1. 3here is a probability space

and the obser'ed outcomes by both ,lice and ob result by random sampling of the (unknown, 4hidden4) parameter . *. 3he 'alues obser'ed by ,lice or ob are functions of the local detector settings and the hidden parameter only. 3hus
o o

Walue obser'ed by ,lice with detector setting is Walue obser'ed by ob with detector setting is

Implicit in assumption $) abo'e, the hidden parameter space has a probability measure and the e2pectation of a random 'ariable $ on with respect to is written

where for accessibility of notation we assume that the probability measure has a density.

C)*) ine%&alit' o,taine( $rom lo#al realism

3he <B:B inequality, gi'en pre'iously, can be deri'ed from the hidden 'ariables formaliFation gi'en immediately abo'e. =or simplicity, let us first assume the obser'ed 'alues are H$ or I$5 we remo'e this assumption in 1emark $ below. Aet 3hen at least one of

is J. 3hus

and therefore

1emark $

3he correlation inequality ($) still holds if the 'ariables , are allowed to take on any real 'alues between I$ and H$. Indeed, the rele'ant idea is that each summand in the abo'e a'erage is bounded abo'e by *. 3his is easily seen as true in the more general case"

3o ?ustify the upper bound * asserted in the last inequality, without loss of generality, we can assume that

In that case

1emark * 3hough the important component of the hidden parameter in ell!s original proof is associated with the source and is shared by ,lice and ob, there may be others that are associated with the separate detectors, these others being conditionally independent gi'en the first, and with conditional probability distributions only depending on the corresponding local setting (if dependent on the settings at all). 3his argument was used by ell in $)+$, and again by <lauser and Borne in $)+7,#$/% to ?ustify a generalisation of the theorem forced on them by the real e2periments, in which detectors were ne'er $JJL efficient. 3he deri'ations were gi'en in terms of the averages of the outcomes o'er the local detector 'ariables. 3he formalisation of local realism was thus effecti'ely changed, replacing , and by a'erages and retaining the symbol but with a slightly different meaning. It was henceforth restricted (in most theoretical work) to mean only those components that were associated with the source. Bowe'er, with the e2tension pro'ed in 1emark $, <B:B inequality still holds e'en if the instruments themsel'es contain hidden 'ariables. In that case, a'eraging o'er the instrument hidden 'ariables gi'es new 'ariables"

on , which still ha'e 'alues in the range #I$, H$% to which we can apply the pre'ious result.

Bell ine%&alities are -iolate( ,' %&ant&m me#hani#al pre(i#tions

3he measurements performed by ,lice and ob are spin measurements on electrons. ,lice can choose between two detector settings labelled a and aX5 these settings correspond to measurement of spin along the & or the x a2is. ob can choose between two detector settings labelled b and bX5 these correspond to measurement of spin along the &X or xX a2is, where the xX G &X coordinate system is rotated $./K relati'e to the x G & coordinate system. 3he spin obser'ables are represented by the * Y * self-ad?oint matrices"

3hese are the 0auli spin matrices normaliFed so that the corresponding eigen'alues are H$, I$. ,s is customary, we denote the eigen'ectors of "x by

Aet be the spin singlet state for a pair of electrons discussed in the -01 parado2. 3his is a specially constructed state described by the following 'ector in the tensor product

&ow let us apply the <B:B formalism to the measurements that can be performed by ,lice and ob.

Illustration of ell test for spin $R* particles. :ource produces spin singlet pairs, one particle of each pair is sent to ,lice and the other to ob. -ach performs one of the two spin measurements.

3he operators , correspond to ob!s spin measurements along xX and &X. &ote that the A operators commute with the B operators, so we can apply our calculation for the correlation. In this case, we can show that the <B:B inequality fails. In fact, a straightforward calculation shows that

and

so that

ell!s 3heorem" If the quantum mechanical formalism is correct, then the system consisting of a pair of entangled electrons cannot satisfy the principle of local realism. &ote that is indeed the upper bound for quantum mechanics called 3sirelson!s bound. 3he operators gi'ing this ma2imal 'alue are always isomorphic to the 0auli matrices.

Pra#ti#al e.periments testing Bell's theorem

*#heme o$ a /t0o-#hannel/ Bell test 3he source : produces pairs of 4photons4, sent in opposite directions. -ach photon encounters a two-channel polariser whose orientation (a or b) can be set by the e2perimenter. -merging signals from each channel are detected and coincidences of four types (HH, II, HI and IH) counted by the coincidence monitor. Main article" ell test e2periments -2perimental tests can determine whether the ell inequalities required by local realism hold up to the empirical e'idence. ell!s inequalities are tested by 4coincidence counts4 from a ell test e2periment such as the optical one shown in the diagram. 0airs of particles are emitted as a result of a quantum process, analysed with respect to some key property such as polarisation direction, then detected. 3he setting (orientations) of the analysers are selected by the e2perimenter. ell test e2periments to date o'erwhelmingly 'iolate ell!s inequality. Indeed, a table of ell test e2periments performed prior to $)>6 is gi'en in 7./ of 1edhead, $)>+.#$)% 8f the thirteen e2periments listed, only two reached results contradictory to quantum mechanics5 moreo'er, according to the same source, when the e2periments were repeated, 4the discrepancies with QM could not be reproduced4. &e'ertheless, the issue is not conclusi'ely settled. ,ccording to :himony!s *JJ7 :tanford -ncyclopedia o'er'iew article"#+% Most of the doFens of e2periments performed so far ha'e fa'ored Quantum Mechanics, but not decisi'ely because of the !detection loopholes! or the !communication loophole.! 3he latter has been nearly decisi'ely blocked by a recent e2periment and there is a good prospect for blocking the former. 3o e2plore the !detection loophole!, one must distinguish the classes of homogeneous and inhomogeneous ell inequality. 3he standard assumption in Quantum 8ptics is that 4all photons of gi'en frequency, direction and polariFation are identical4 so that photodetectors treat all incident photons on an equal basis. :uch a fair sampling assumption generally goes unacknowledged, yet it effecti'ely limits the

range of local theories to those that concei'e of the light field as corpuscular. 3he assumption e2cludes a large family of local realist theories, in particular, Ma2 0lanck!s description. (e must remember the cautionary words of ,lbert -instein#*J% shortly before he died" 4&owadays e'ery 3om, @ick and Barry (!?eder Zerl! in Qerman original) thinks he knows what a photon is, but he is mistaken4. 3hose who maintain the concept of duality, or simply of light being a wa'e, recogniFe the possibility or actuality that the emitted atomic light signals ha'e a range of amplitudes and, furthermore, that the amplitudes are modified when the signal passes through analyFing de'ices such as polariFers and beam splitters. It follows that not all signals ha'e the same detection probability.#*$%

10o #lasses o$ Bell ine%&alities

3he fair sampling problem was faced openly in the $)+Js. In early designs of their $)+. e2periment, =reedman and <lauser#**% used fair sampling in the form of the <lauserGBorneG :himonyGBolt (<B:B#$>%) hypothesis. Bowe'er, shortly afterwards <lauser and Borne#$/% made the important distinction between inhomogeneous (I I) and homogeneous (B I) ell inequalities. 3esting an I I requires that we compare certain coincidence rates in two separated detectors with the singles rates of the two detectors. &obody needed to perform the e2periment, because singles rates with all detectors in the $)+Js were at least ten times all the coincidence rates. :o, taking into account this low detector efficiency, the QM prediction actually satisfied the I I. 3o arri'e at an e2perimental design in which the QM prediction 'iolates I I we require detectors whose efficiency e2ceeds >*.>L for singlet states,#*.% but ha'e 'ery low dark rate and short dead and resol'ing times. 3his is well abo'e the .JL achie'able#*7% so :himonyDs optimism in the :tanford -ncyclopedia, quoted in the preceding section, appears o'er-stated.

Pra#ti#al #hallenges
Main article" Aoopholes in ell test e2periments ecause detectors don!t detect a large fraction of all photons, <lauser and Borne#$/% recogniFed that testing ell!s inequality requires some e2tra assumptions. 3hey introduced the 'o Enhancement (ypothesis (&-B)" , light signal, originating in an atomic cascade for e2ample, has a certain probability of acti'ating a detector. 3hen, if a polariFer is interposed between the cascade and the detector, the detection probability cannot increase. Qi'en this assumption, there is a ell inequality between the coincidence rates with polariFers and coincidence rates without polariFers. 3he e2periment was performed by =reedman and <lauser,#**% who found that the ell!s inequality was 'iolated. :o the no-enhancement hypothesis cannot be true in a local hidden 'ariables model. 3he =reedmanG<lauser e2periment re'eals that local hidden 'ariables imply the new phenomenon of signal enhancement"

In the total set of signals from an atomic cascade there is a subset whose detection probability increases as a result of passing through a linear polariFer. 3his is perhaps not surprising, as it is known that adding noise to data can, in the presence of a threshold, help re'eal hidden signals (this property is known#*/% as stochastic resonance). 8ne cannot conclude that this is the only local-realist alternati'e to Quantum 8ptics, but it does show that the word loophole is biased. Moreo'er, the analysis leads us to recogniFe that the ellinequality e2periments, rather than showing a breakdown of realism or locality, are capable of re'ealing important new phenomena.

1heoreti#al #hallenges
Most ad'ocates of the hidden 'ariables idea belie'e that e2periments ha'e ruled out local hidden 'ariables. 3hey are ready to gi'e up locality, e2plaining the 'iolation of ell!s inequality by means of a non-local hidden 'ariable theory, in which the particles e2change information about their states. 3his is the basis of the ohm interpretation of quantum mechanics, which requires that all particles in the uni'erse be able to instantaneously e2change information with all others. , *JJ+ e2periment ruled out a large class of non- ohmian non-local hidden 'ariable theories.#*6% If the hidden 'ariables can communicate with each other faster than light, ell!s inequality can easily be 'iolated. 8nce one particle is measured, it can communicate the necessary correlations to the other particle. :ince in relati'ity the notion of simultaneity is not absolute, this is unattracti'e. 8ne idea is to replace instantaneous communication with a process that tra'els backwards in time along the past Aight cone. 3his is the idea behind a transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics, which interprets the statistical emergence of a quantum history as a gradual coming to agreement between histories that go both forward and backward in time.#*+% , few ad'ocates of deterministic models ha'e not gi'en up on local hidden 'ariables. =or e2ample, Qerard !t Booft has argued that the superdeterminism loophole cannot be dismissed.#*>%
#*)%

3he quantum mechanical wa'efunction can also pro'ide a local realistic description, if the wa'efunction 'alues are interpreted as the fundamental quantities that describe reality. :uch an approach is called a many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. In this 'iew, two distant obser'ers both split into superpositions when measuring a spin. 3he ell inequality 'iolations are no longer counterintuiti'e, because it is not clear which copy of the obser'er obser'er , will see when going to compare notes. If reality includes all the different outcomes, locality in physical space (not outcome space) places no restrictions on how the split obser'ers can meet up. 3his implies that there is a subtle assumption in the argument that realism is incompatible with quantum mechanics and locality. 3he assumption, in its weakest form, is called counterfactual definiteness. 3his states that if the results of an e2periment are always obser'ed to be definite, there is a quantity that determines what the outcome would ha'e been e'en if you don!t do the e2periment.

Many worlds interpretations are not only counterfactually indefinite, they are factually indefinite. 3he results of all e2periments, e'en ones that ha'e been performed, are not uniquely determined. In $)>), -. 3. 9aynes#.J% claimed that there are two hidden assumptions in ell Inequality that could limit its generality. ,ccording to him" $. ell interpreted conditional probability 0([\]) as a causal inference, i.e. ] e2erted a causal inference on [ in reality. Bowe'er, 0([\]) actually only means logical inference (deduction). <auses cannot tra'el faster than light or backward in time, but deduction can. *. ell!s inequality does not apply to some possible hidden 'ariable theories. It only applies to a certain class of local hidden 'ariable theories. In fact, it might ha'e ?ust missed the kind of hidden 'ariable theories that -instein is most interested in. Bowe'er, 1ichard @. Qill has argued that 9aynes misunderstood ell!s analysis. Qill also points out that in the same paper in which 9aynes argued against ell, 9aynes cautiously praised a short proof by :te'e Qull, that the singlet correlations could not be reproduced by a computer simulation of a local hidden 'ariables theory.#.$%

2inal remar3s
3he 'iolations of ell!s inequalities, due to quantum entanglement, ?ust pro'ide the definite demonstration of something that was already strongly suspected, that quantum physics cannot be represented by any 'ersion of the classical picture of physics.#.*% :ome earlier elements that had seemed incompatible with classical pictures included apparent complementarity and (hypothesiFed) wa'efunction collapse. <omplementarity is now seen not as an independent ingredient of the quantum picture but rather as a direct consequence of the Quantum decoherence e2pected from the quantum formalism itself. 3he possibility of wa'efunction collapse is now seen as one possible problematic ingredient of some interpretations, rather than as an essential part of quantum mechanics. 3he ell 'iolations show that no resolution of such issues can a'oid the ultimate strangeness of quantum beha'ior.#..% 3he -01 paper 4pinpointed4 the unusual properties of the entangled states, e.g. the abo'ementioned singlet state, which is the foundation for present-day applications of quantum physics, such as quantum cryptography5 one application in'ol'es the measurement of quantum entanglement as a physical source of bits for 1abin!s obli'ious transfer protocol. 3his strange non-locality was originally supposed to be a 1eductio ad absurdum, because the standard interpretation could easily do away with action-at-a-distance by simply assigning to each particle definite spin-states. ell!s theorem showed that the 4entangledness4 prediction of quantum mechanics has a degree of non-locality that cannot be e2plained away by any local theory. In well-defined Bell experiments (see the paragraph on 4test e2periments4) one can now falsify either quantum mechanics or -instein!s quasi-classical assumptions" currently many e2periments of this kind ha'e been performed, and the e2perimental results support quantum mechanics, though some point out that it is theoretically possible that detectors gi'e a biased sample of photons, so that until the relati'e amount of 4unpaired4 photons is small enough, the final word

has not yet been spoken. ,ccording to Marek ^ukowski, quoted in :cience MagaFine (*J$$),#.7% e2perimenters e2pect the first loophole free e2periment to be done in fi'e years. ,ccording to one of the most foremost e2perimenters in this field, ,nton ^eilinger (*J$.), the goal of a loophole free e2periment is 'ery close and will be a ma?or achie'ement. (hat is powerful about ell!s theorem is that it doesn!t refer to any particular physical theory. (hat makes ell!s theorem unique and powerful is that it shows that nature 'iolates the most general assumptions behind classical pictures, not ?ust details of some particular models. &o combination of local deterministic and local random 'ariables can reproduce the phenomena predicted by quantum mechanics and repeatedly obser'ed in e2periments.#./%

4otes
_ 9ump up to" a b <. . 0arker ($))7). )c*ra+ (ill Encyclopaedia of Physics (*nd ed.). McQraw Bill. p. /7*. I: & J-J+-J/$7JJ-.. *. 5&mp &p 6 &. @a'id Mermin, 4Is the moon there when nobody looks` 1eality and the quantum theory4 in Physics ,oday, ,pril, .>-7+ ($)>/). 0@=. $. ..
4.

5&mp &p 6 Benry 0. :tapp, 4 ell!s 3heorem and (orld 0rocess4, 'uovo imento, Wol. *) , &o. *, p. *+J ($)+/). (Quote on p. *+$) 5&mp &p 6 <. . 0arker ($))7). )c*ra+ (ill Encyclopaedia of Physics (*nd ed.). McQraw Bill. p. /7$. I: & J-J+-J/$7JJ-.. _ 9ump up to" a b c d e f g ell, 9ohn ($)67). 48n the -instein 0odolsky 1osen 0arado24. Physics 1 (.)" $)/G*JJ. 5&mp &p 6 ohm, @a'id -uantum ,heory. 0renticeIBall, $)/$. _ 9ump up to" a b c d ,rticle on Bell.s ,heorem by ,bner :himony in the :tanford -ncyclopedia of 0hilosophy, (*JJ7). 5&mp &p 6 Aeggett, ,nthony (*JJ.). 4&onlocal Bidden-Wariable 3heories and Quantum Mechanics" ,n Incompatibility 3heorem4. /oundations of Physics 33 ($J)" $76)G$7).. doi"$J.$J*.R,"$J*6J)6.$.+*). 5&mp &p 6 Qriffiths, @a'id 9. ($))>). 0ntroduction to -uantum )echanics (*nd ed.). 0earsonR0rentice Ball. p. 7*.. 5&mp &p 6 MerFbacher, -ugene (*JJ/). -uantum )echanics (.rd ed.). 9ohn (iley a :ons. pp. $>, .6*. 5&mp &p 6 :tapp, $)+/ 5&mp &p 6 ell, 9:, 48n the impossible pilot wa'e.4 /oundations of Physics ($)>*) $*")>)G)). 1eprinted in "peakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics1 collected papers on quantum philosophy. <;0, *JJ7, p. $6J.

/.
6.

+. >.

). $J. $$. $*.

$..

5&mp &p 6 ell, 9:, 48n the impossible pilot wa'e.4 /oundations of Physics ($)>*) $*")>)G)). 1eprinted in "peakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics1 collected papers on quantum philosophy. <;0, *JJ7, p. $6$. 5&mp &p 6 -instein, ,.5 0odolsky, .5 1osen, &. ($)./). 4<an QuantumMechanical @escription of 0hysical 1eality e <onsidered <omplete`4. Physical Revie+ 47 ($J)" +++. ibcode"$)./0h1'...7+..+++-. doi"$J.$$J.R0hys1e'.7+.+++. _ 9ump up to" a b c d <lauser, 9ohn =. ($)+7). 4-2perimental consequences of ob?ecti'e local theories4. Physical Revie+ 2 1! (*)" /*6. ibcode"$)+70h1'@..$J../*6<. doi"$J.$$J.R0hys1e'@.$J./*6. 5&mp &p 6 -berhard, 0. B. ($)++). 4 ell!s theorem without hidden 'ariables4. 'uovo imento B 38" +/G>J. ibcode"$)++&<im ...>...+/-. doi"$J.$JJ+R =J*+*6*$*. 5&mp &p 6 ell, 9:, "peakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics1 0ntroduction remarks at 'aples3Amalfi meeting4, $)>7. 1eprinted in "peakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics1 collected papers on quantum philosophy. <;0, *JJ7, p. *). _ 9ump up to" a b c <lauser, 9ohn5 Borne, Michael5 :himony, ,bner5 Bolt, 1ichard ($)6)). 40roposed -2periment to 3est Aocal Bidden-Wariable 3heories4. Physical Revie+ 5etters 23 ($/)" >>J. ibcode"$)6)0h1'A..*...>>J<. doi"$J.$$J.R0hys1e'Aett.*..>>J. 5&mp &p 6 M. 1edhead, 0ncompleteness6 'onlocality and Realism, <larendon 0ress ($)>+) 5&mp &p 6 ,. -instein in orrespondance Einstein3Besso, p.*6/ (Berman, 0aris, $)+)) 5&mp &p 6 Marshall and :antos, :emiclassical optics as an alternati'e to nonlocality 1ecent 1esearch @e'elopments in 8ptics *"6>.G+$+ (*JJ*) I: & >$-++.6$7J-6 _ 9ump up to" a b =reedman, :tuart 9.5 <lauser, 9ohn =. ($)+*). 4-2perimental 3est of Aocal Bidden-Wariable 3heories4. Physical Revie+ 5etters 28 ($7)" ).>. ibcode"$)+*0h1'A..*>..).>=. doi"$J.$$J.R0hys1e'Aett.*>.).>. 5&mp &p 6 ,nupam Qarg, &.@. Mermin ($)>+), 4@etector inefficiencies in the -instein-0odolsky-1osen e2periment4, Phys4 Rev4 2 29 ($*)" .>.$G/, doi"$J.$$J.R0hys1e'@../..>.$ 5&mp &p 6 Qiorgio rida5 Marco Qeno'ese5 Marco Qramegna5 =abriFio 0iacentini5 -nrico 0redaFFi5 I'ano 1uo- erchera (*JJ+). 4-2perimental tests of hidden 'ariable theories from d to :tochastic -lectrodynamics4. 7ournal of Physics1 onference "eries :7 ($*J7+)" J$*J7+. ar[i'"quant-phRJ6$*J+/. ibcode"*JJ+90h<:..6+a*J7+Q. doi"$J.$J>>R$+7*-6/)6R6+R$RJ$*J7+.

14.

$/.

$6.
17.

$>.

$). *J.
21.

**.

*..

*7.

*/.

5&mp &p 6 Qammaitoni, Auca5 Bbnggi, 0eter5 9ung, 0eter5 Marchesoni, =abio ($))>). 4:tochastic resonance4. Revie+s of )odern Physics 7!" **.. ibcode"$))>1'M0...+J..**.Q. doi"$J.$$J.R1e'Mod0hys.+J.**.. 5&mp &p 6 Qrcblacher, :imon5 0aterek, 3omasF5 Zaltenbaek, 1ainer5 rukner, dasla'5 eukowski, Marek5 ,spelmeyer, Markus5 ^eilinger, ,nton (*JJ+). 4,n e2perimental test of non-local realism4. 'ature 44: (+$.>)" >+$G/. ar[i'"J+J7.*/*). ibcode"*JJ+&atur.776..>+$Q. doi"$J.$J.>RnatureJ/6++. 0MI@ $+77.$+). 5&mp &p 6 <ramer, 9ohn ($)>6). 43he transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics4. Revie+s of )odern Physics 98 (.)" 67+. ibcode"$)>61'M0.../>..67+<. doi"$J.$$J.R1e'Mod0hys./>.67+. 5&mp &p 6 Qerard !t Booft (*JJ)). 4-ntangled quantum states in a local deterministic theory4. ar[i'"J)J>..7J> #quant-ph%. 5&mp &p 6 Qerard !t Booft (*JJ+). 43he =ree-(ill 0ostulate in Quantum Mechanics4. ar[i'"quant-phRJ+J$J)+ #quant-ph%. 5&mp &p 6 9aynes, -. 3. ($)>)). 4<learing up MysteriesN3he 8riginal Qoal4. )aximum Entropy and Bayesian )ethods" $*. 5&mp &p 6 Qill, 1ichard @. (*JJ.). 43ime, =inite :tatistics, and ellDs =ifth 0osition4. Proc4 of 8/oundations of Probability and Physics 9 :86 "er4 )ath4 )odelling in Phys46 Engin46 and ogn4 "c4 (Wb2?c ;ni'. 0ress). /R*JJ*" $+)G*J6. 5&mp &p 6 1oger 0enrose (*JJ+). ,he Road to Reality. Wintage books. p. />.. I: & J-6+)-++6.$-$. 5&mp &p 6 -. ,bers (*JJ7). -uantum )echanics. ,ddison (esley. pp. $).G $)/. I: & )+>J$.$76$JJJ. 5&mp &p 6 Merali, ^. (*J$$). 4Quantum Mechanics races for the ;ltimate 3est4. "cience 331 (6J*.)" $.>JG$.>*. doi"$J.$$*6Rscience...$.6J*..$.>J. 1etrie'ed $* :eptember *J$.. 5&mp &p 6 1.Q. Aerner, Q.A. 3rigg ($))$). Encyclopaedia of Physics (*nd ed.). WB< publishers. p. 7)/. I: & J->)/+.-+/*-..

*6.

*+.

*>. *). .J. .$.

.*. ... .7.

./.