In this article we are willing to give some first steps to quantum mechanics and a motivation of quantum mechanics and its interpretation for undergraduate students not from physics. After a short historical review in the development we discuss philosophical, physical and mathematical interpretation. We define local realism, locality and hidden variable theory which ends up in the EPR paradox, a place where questions on completeness and reality comes into play. The fundamental result of the last century was maybe Bell's that states that local realism is false if quantum mechanics is true. From this fact we can obtain the so called Bell inequalities. After a didactic example of the fact what these inequalities means we describe the key concept of quantum entanglement motivated here by quantum information theory. Also classical entropy and von Neuman entropy is discussed.
Various interpretations of quantum mechanics, favored (or neglected) by John Bell in the context of his non-locality theorem, are compared and discussed.
We give a simple proof of Bell's inequality in quantum mechanics which, in conjunction with experiments, demonstrates that the local hidden variables assumption is false. The proof sheds light on relationships between the notion of causal interaction and interference between particles.
A recent Nature Physics editorial (Nat. Phys. (2022) 18, 961) falsely claims ``any theory that uses hidden variables still requires non-local physics.'' We correct this claim and explain why it is important to get this right.
Non-locality, or quantum-non-locality, are buzzwords in the community of quantum foundation and information scientists, which purportedly describe the implications of Bell's theorem. When such phrases are treated seriously, that is it is claimed that Bell's theorem reveals non-locality as an inherent trait of the quantum description of the micro-world, this leads to logical contradictions, which will be discussed here. In fact, Bell's theorem, understood as violation of Bell inequalities by quantum predictions, is consistent with Bohr's notion of complementarity. Thus, if it points to anything…
Alain Aspect's three experiments on Bell's theorem, published in the early 1980s, were a turning point in the history of the research on the foundations of quantum mechanics not only because they corroborated entanglement as the distinctive quantum signature but also because these experiments brought wider recognition to this field of research and Aspect himself. These experiments may be considered the most direct precursors of the research on quantum information, which would blossom a decade later.
Bell's theorem has fascinated physicists and philosophers since his 1964 paper, which was written in response to the 1935 paper of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen. Bell's theorem and its many extensions have led to the claim that quantum mechanics and by inference nature herself are nonlocal in the sense that a measurement on a system by an observer at one location has an immediate effect on a distant "entangled" system (one with which the original system has previously interacted). Einstein was repulsed by such "spooky action at a distance" and was led to question whether quantum mechanics coul…
Bell's theorem is a fundamental result in quantum mechanics: it discriminates between quantum mechanics and all theories where probabilities in measurement results arise from the ignorance of pre-existing local properties. We give an extremely simple proof of Bell's inequality: a single figure suffices. This simplicity may be useful in the unending debate of what exactly the Bell inequality means, since the hypothesis at the basis of the proof become extremely transparent. It is also a useful didactic tool, as the Bell inequality can be explained in a single intuitive lecture.
This paper deals with the ways that the issue of completing quantum mechanics was brought into laboratories and became a topic in mainstream quantum optics. It focuses on the period between 1965, when Bell published what now we call Bell's theorem, and 1982, when Aspect published the results of his experiments. I argue that what was considered good physics after Aspect's experiments was once considered by many a philosophical matter instead of a scientific one, and that the path from philosophy to physics required a change in the physics community's attitude about the status of the foundations…
Between 1964 and 1990, the notion of nonlocality in Bell's papers underwent a profound change as his nonlocality theorem gradually became detached from quantum mechanics, and referred to wider probabilistic theories involving correlations between separated beables. The proposition that standard quantum mechanics is itself nonlocal (more precisely, that it violates `local causality') became divorced from the Bell theorem per se from 1976 on, although this important point is widely overlooked in the literature. In 1990, the year of his death, Bell would express serious misgivings about the mathe…
In the 80 years since the seminal Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) paper, physicists and philosophers have mused about the `spooky action at a distance' aspect of quantum mechanics that so bothered Einstein. In his formal analysis of EPR-type entangled quantum states, Bell (1964) concluded that any hidden variable theory designed to reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics must necessarily be nonlocal and allow superluminal interactions. This doesn't immediately imply that nonlocality is a characteristic feature of quantum mechanics let alone a fundamental property of nature; however,…
This short article concentrates on the conceptual aspects of the violation of Bell inequalities, and acts as a map to the 265 cited references. The article outlines (a) relevant characteristics of quantum mechanics, such as statistical balance and entanglement, (b) the thinking that led to the derivation of the original Bell inequality, and (c) the range of claimed implications, including realism, locality and others which attract less attention. The main conclusion is that violation of Bell inequalities appears to have some implications for the nature of physical reality, but that none of the…
I present the background of the Bohm approach that led John Bell to a study of quantum non-locality from which his famous inequalities emerged. I recall the early experiments done at Birkbeck with an aim to explore the possibility of `spontaneous collapse', a way suggested by Schrödinger to avoid the conclusion that quantum mechanics was grossly non-local. I also review some of the work that John did which directly impinged on my own investigations into the foundations of quantum mechanics and report some new investigations towards a more fundamental theory.
Christopher Fuchs and Rüdiger Schack have developed a way of understanding science, which, among other things, resolves many of the conceptual puzzles of quantum mechanics that have vexed people for the past nine decades. They call it QBism. I speculate on how John Bell might have reacted to QBism, and I explain the many ways in which QBism differs importantly from the orthodox ways of thinking about quantum mechanics associated with the term "Copenhagen interpretation."
The Platonic solids is the name traditionally given to the five regular convex polyhedra, namely the tetradron, the octahedron, the cube, the icosahedron and the dodecahedron. Perhaps strongly boosted by the towering historical influence of their namesake, these beautiful solids have, in well over two millenia, transcended traditional boundaries and entered the stage in a range of disciplines. Examples include natural philosophy and mathematics from classical antiquity, scientific modeling during the days of the european scientific revolution and visual arts ranging from the renaissance to mod…
A recent paper [P. Martin-Dussaud, C. Rovelli, F. Zalamea, arXiv:1806.08150] has given a lucid treatment of Bell's notion of local causality within the framework of the relational interpretation of quantum mechanics. However, the authors went on to conclude that the quantum violation of Bell's notion of local causality is no more surprising than a common cause. Here, I argue that this conclusion is unwarranted by the authors' own analysis. On the contrary, within the framework outlined by the authors, I argue that the implications of the relational interpretation are much more radical.
