Counterfactual Definiteness and Bell’s Inequality
- 1 Center for Advanced Study, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, USA
- 2 Zernike Institute for Advanced Materials, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
- 3 Institute for Advanced Simulation, Jülich Supercomputing Centre, Jülich, Germany
- 4 RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
Abstract
Counterfactual definiteness must be used as at least one of the postulates or axioms that are necessary to derive Bell-type inequalities. It is considered by many to be a postulate that not only is commensurate with classical physics (as for example Einstein’s special relativity), but also separates and distinguishes classical physics from quantum mechanics. It is the purpose of this paper to show that Bell’s choice of mathematical functions and independent variables implicitly includes counterfactual definiteness. However, his particular choice of variables reduces the generality of his theory, as well as the physics of all Bell-type theories, so significantly that no meaningful comparison of these theories with actual Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiments can be made.
- Bell, J.S. (2001) On the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. World Scientific, Singapore City, 228-222.
- Peres, A. (1995) Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 2006-2007.
- Leggett, A.J. (1987) The Problems of Physics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 164-165.
- Gilder, L. (2008) The Age of Entanglement. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 269-296.
- Hess, K. (2015) Einstein Was Right! Pan Stanford Publishing, Singapore City.
- De Raedt, H., Jin, F. and Michielsen, K. (2013) Proceedings of SPIE, 8832, N1-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/12.2021860
- De Raedt, H., Michielsen, K. and Hess, K. (2016) Irrelevance of Bell’s Theorem for Experiments Involving Correlations in Space and Time: A Specific Loophole-Free Computer-Example. arXiv:1605.05237 [quant-ph]
- Brans, C. (1987) International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 27, 219-226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00670750
- Boole, G. (1862) Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 152, 225-252. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstl.1862.0015
- Vorob’ev, N.N. (1962) Theory of Probability and Its Applications, 7, 147-162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1137/1107014
- Hess, K., De Raedt, H. and Michielsen, K. (2016) From Boole to Leggett-Garg: Epistemology of Bell-Type Inequalities. arXiv:1605.04887v1 [quant-ph]
- Aspect, A., Dalibard, J. and Roger, G. (1982) Physical Review Letters, 49, 1804-1807. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.49.1804
- Weihs, G., Jennewein, T., Simon, C., Weinfurther, H. and Zeilinger, A. (1998) Physical Review Letters, 81, 5039-5043. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.5039
- Khrennikov, A.Y. (2009) Contextual Approach to Quantum Formalism. Springer, Berlin. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9593-1
- Hess, K. and Philipp, W. (2005) Founda-tions of Physics, 35, 1749-1767. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10701-005-6520-y
- Breuer, H.-P. and Petruccione, F. (2002) Open Quantum Systems. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
- Gill, Richard D. (2003) Accardi Contra Bell (Cum Mundi): The Impossible Coupling. Mathematical Statistics and Applications: Festschrift for Constance van Eeden, Institute of Mathematical Statistics, Beachwood, 133-154. http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.lnms/1215091935