Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Bell, John 1964

Bell, John 1964

Ratings: (0)|Views: 25 |Likes:
Published by mrklaney123
Dr. John Bell's original paper on EPR, quantum reality, and the derivation of his famous inequality.
Dr. John Bell's original paper on EPR, quantum reality, and the derivation of his famous inequality.

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Science
Published by: mrklaney123 on Mar 17, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/28/2010

pdf

text

original

 
III.S ON THE EINSTEIN PODOLSKY ROSEN P
JOHN
S.
BELLt
I.
Introduction
THE
paradox of
Einstein,
Podolsky andRosen
[1]
was advanced
as
an
argument
that
quantum
mechanics
could
not
be a
complete
theory
butshould be supplemented
by
additional variables.
These
additional
vari
ables
were
to
restore
to
the
theory
causality
and
locality
[2}. In
this
note that
idea
willbe
formulated
mathematically
and
shown
tobeincompatible
wi
th
the
statistical
predictions of
quantum
mechanics.
It
is
the requirement
oflocality,
or
more
precisely
that
the
result
of
a measurement on
one
system be
unaffected
by
operations
on a
distant
system
with which
it
has
interacted
in
the
past,
that
creates
the
essential
difficulty.
There
have
beenattempts
[3}
to
show
that
even
without
such
a
separability
or
locality
requirement
no
"hidden
variable"
interpretation of
quantum
mechanics
is
possible. These
attempts have
beenexamined
elsewhere
[4] and found wanting. Moreover, a hidden
variable interpretation
of
elementary
quan
tum
theory
[5}
has
been
explicitlyconstructed.That
particular interpretation
has
indeed a
grossly
non
local structure.
This
is characteristic,
according
to
the result
to
be
proved
here,
of any
such
theory whichreproduces
exactly the
quantum
mechanical predictions.
II.
Formulation
With
the exampleadvocated
by Bohm and Aharonov [6],
the
EPR
argument
is
the
following.
Consider
a
pair
of
spin one-half
particles
formed somehow in
the singlet
spin
state
and moving
freely
in
oppositedirections.
Measurements
canbe
made,
say
by
Stern-Gerlach
magnets,
on
selected
components of
thespins
;;1
and
U2'
If
measurement
of
the
component
;;1'
a,
where
a
is
some unit vector,
yields
the
value
+
1 then,
according
to quantum
mechanics,
measurement
of
U2'
a
must
yield the value
-1
and
vice versa.
Now
we make
the
hypothesis
[21,
and
it seems
one
at least
worth
considering,that
if
the
two
measure
ments
are
made
at
places
remote from
one another
the
orientation of
one magnet
does
not
influence theresult obtained
wi
th
the other. Since
we
canpredict
in
advance theresultof measuring
any
chosen
component
of
u2'
by
previously measuring thesame
component
of
u1
it
follows
that the
result
of
any
such
measurement must
actually
be
predetermined.
Since the
initial
quantum
mechanical wave
function
does
not
determine
the result of
an
individual
measurement,
this
predetermination
implies the
possibility
of
a morecomplete
specification of
the
state.
Letthis
more
complete
specification
be
effected
by
means ofparameters
A.
It
is
a
matter
of
indiffer
ence
in
the
following
whether
A
denotes
a
single
variable
or a
set,
or
even
a
set
of
functions,
and whetherthe
variables
are
discrete
or continuous.
However, we
write
as
if
A were a
single
continuous
parameter.
The
result
A
of measuring
u
1
.:it
is
then determined
by
a
and
A,
and
the result
B
of
measuring
;2.6
in
thesame
instance
is
determined
by
b
and
A,
and
.Work
supported
in
part
by
the
U.S.
Atomic
Energy
COildllissiontOn
leave of
absence
from
SLAC
and
CERN
Originally published in
Physics,
1, 195-200 (1964) .
 
404
BELL
A(6,
X)
=
±
1,
B(~,
X)
=
±
1.
(1)
The
vital assumption (2)
is
that the result
8
for particle 2 does not depend on the
setting
S,
of the
magnet
for particle
1,
nor
A
on
~.
If
p(X)
is
the probability distribution
of
X then the expectation value
of
the product of the
two com·
....
....,
ponents
01.8
and
02'
0
is
P(a,~)
=
dXp(X)A(a,
X)B(~,X)
(2)
This
should equal the quantum mechanical expectation value, which for the singlet
stateis
(3)
But it will be shown that
this
is
not possible.
Some
might prefer a formulation
in
which the hidden variables fall into two
sets,
with
A
dependent
on
one and
8
on
the other; this possibility
is
contained in the above,
since
X
stands
for any number of vari·abies and the dependences thereon of
A
and
8
are unrestricted.
In
a complete physical theory of thetype envisaged
by
Einstein, the hidden variables would have dynamical significance and laws of
motion;
our X can then
be
thought of
as
initial values of
these
variables
at
some
suitable instant.
III. Illustration
The
proof of the main result
is
quite simple. Before giving it, however, a number of illustrations
may
serve to put
it
in perspective.Firstly, there
is
no
difficulty
in
giving a hidden variable account of spin measurements
on
a singleparticle. Suppose we have a spin half particle in a pure spin
state
with polarization denoted
by
a unit
..
..
vector
p.
L~t
the
hi~de~
variable be (for example) a unit vector X with uniform
proba~ili~
distributionover the hemisphere X
P
>
O.
Specify that the result of measurement of a component
0
8
is
..
..,
sign
X'
8 ,
(4)
where
8'
is
a unit vector depending
on
a
and
Ii
in a
way
to be specified, and the sign function
is
+
1
or
-1
according to the sign
of
its
argument. Actually
this leaves
the result undetermined when
A •
8'
..
=
0,
but
as
the probability
of this
is
zero we will not make
special
prescriptions for
it.
Averaging over
A
theexpectation value
is
where
8'
until
...
,
is
the angle between
8
..
...
,
<0'8>=
1-28/1"
and
Ii.
Suppose then that
S'
is
obtained
from
28'
1 -=
cos
8
"
.
... ...
where 8
IS
the angle between 8 and
p.
Then
we
have the desired result
......
<0'8>=cos8
(5)
a
by
rotation towards
;;
(6)
(7)
So
in this simple
case
there
is
no difficulty in the view that the result of every measurement
is
determined
by
the value
of
an extra variable, and that the
statistical
features of quantum mechanics
arise
because tile• value
of
this variable
is
unknown in individual
instances.
 
EPRPARADOX
405
Secondly, there
is
no difficulty in reproducing, in
the
fonn
(2), the only features of (3) cOilu"only usedin verbal
discussions
of
this
problem:
(
....
....
P a, a
= -
P(a,
-a)
=
-1
(8)
..
't\
...
..,
P
(a,
01
=
0
If
a·
0
=
0
For example,
let
A
now
be unit vector
X,
with uniform probability distribution over
all
directions, and takeThis gives
A
(..
.,.)
..
.,.
a,
A
=
sign
a·
A
8
(a,
b)
= -
sign
~.
X
..
..,
2
P
(a,
0)
'"
-
1
+ -
8 ,
"
(9)
(10)
where
0
is
the angle between
a
and
b,
and (10)
has
the properties (8). For comparison, consider the re
sult of
a modified theory (6) in which
the
pure singlet
state
is
replaced in the course
of
time
by
an isotropic mixture of product
statesj this
gives the correlation function
-.!.s.~
3
It
is
probably
less
easy,
experimentally, to distinguish (10)
from
(3), than (11)
from
(3).Unlike (3), the function (10)
is
not stationary
at
the
minimum
value
-1(at
8 .. 0).
It
will bethat this
is
characteristic
of functions of type (2).(11)Thirdly, and finally, there
is
no difficulty in reproducing
the-
quantum mechanical correlation (3)
if
the
results
A
and 8 in (2) are allowed to depend
on
~
and
s
espectively
as
well
as
on
a
and~.
For example, replace
s
n (9)
by
ii',
obtained
frolil
a
y
rotation towards
g
until1 -
~
8'
=
cos
8 ,
"
where
8'
is
the angle
S'
and
g.
However, for given values of the hidden variables, the
resultsof
measurements with one magnet
now
depend on the
setting
of the
distant
magnet, which
is
just
what
we
would wish to avoid.
IV.
Contradiction
The main
result
will now be proved.
Because
p
is
a nonnalized probability distribution,
dAp(A)
=
1,
(12)
and
because
of the properties
(I),
P
in (2) cannot be
less
than
-1.
It
can resch
-1
at
a
g
only
if
A(a,
A)
-
-8(a,
A)
(13)
except
at
a
set
of points A
of
zero probability. Assuming this, (2)
can
be rewritten
(14)

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->