Adan Cabello
It is shown that Marinatto's claim [Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 258901 (2003)] that the proof of "Bell's theorem without inequalities and without probabilities for two observers" [A. Cabello, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 1911 (2001)] requires four spacelike separated observers rather than two is unjustified.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
继续探索
Marinatto claims that in the proof of Bell's theorem without inequalities and without alignments [A. Cabello, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 230403 (2003)], local observables cannot be measured by means of tests on individual qubits. Marinatto's claim is incorrect. To support this, the proof is explicitly rewritten in terms of tests on individual qubits.
This is a collection of my responses to the criticisms of my argument against the impossibility proof of John Bell, which aims to undermine any conceivable local realistic completion of quantum mechanics. I plan to periodically update this preprint instead of creating a new one for each response.
Recently, Matzkin claimed the construction of a hidden variable (HV) model which is both local and equivalent with the quantum-mechanical predictions. In this paper we will briefly present this HV model and argue, by identifying an extra non-local "hidden" HV, why this model is not local
Recently K. Banaszek, I. A. Walmsley, K. Wodkiewicz (quant-ph/0012097) commented on our Proposal for the Measurement of Bell-Type Correlations from Continuous Variables [T. C. Ralph, W. J. Munro, R. E. S. Polkinghorne, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2035 (2000)]. Their comment is based on a blatant misreading and misunderstanding of our letter and as such is simply wrong.
It is stated by C. Simon, quant-ph/0410032, that the definition of "classicality" used in quant-ph/0310116 is "much narrower than Bell's concept of local hidden variables" and that, in the separable quantum case, the validity of the perfect correlation form of the original Bell inequality is necessarily linked with "the assumption of perfect correlations if the same (quantum) observable is measured on both sides". Here, I prove that these and other statements in quant-ph/0410032 are misleading.
In a recent paper [arXiv:1703.11003] on this journal Stephen Boughn argued that quantum mechanics does not require nonlocality of any kind and that the common interpretation of Bell theorem as a nonlocality result is based on a misunderstanding. In this note I argue that the Boughn arguments, that summarize views widespread in certain areas of the foundations of quantum mechanics, are based on an incorrect reading of the presuppositions of the EPR argument and the Bell theorem and, as a consequence, are totally unfounded.
In this reply I address the comment by W-Y. Hwang and O. Gittsovich on my paper [Phys. Rev. A {\bf 82}, 032313 (2010)]. The authors of the comment point out that I use implicit assumption that the alphabet of the eavesdropper is binary. They claim that such assumption is unrealistic. Here I show that even without this assumption the main result of my paper still holds.
In a recent note, Cavalcanti and Scarani (CS) constructed a counter local-hidden-variable model to explain the violation of our inequalities in Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 170404 (2010). Here, we briefly discuss some issues in response to the comments raised by CS.
Reply to "Comment(s) to "Consequences of the single-pair measurement of the Bell parameter""
针对对单对贝尔参数测量实验的评论，作者回应质疑并澄清其对量子力学解释的影响。
In a recent comment \cite{ch1} it has been claimed that an entangled-based quantum key distribution protocol proposed in \cite{zhang} and its generalization to d-level systems in \cite{v1} are insecure against an attack devised by the authors of the comment. We invalidate the arguments of the comment and show that the protocols are still secure.
It is shown that the before-before (or Suarez-Scarani) experiment refutes hidden variable models with a deterministic ("realistic") nonlocal part, and the experimental violation of Leggett-type inequalities models with a random nonlocal part and a biased random local one. Therefore the claim that Groeblacher et al. present "an experimental test of nonlocal realism" [Nature, 446, 871-875 (2007)] is misleading, and Marek Zukowski's comment [arXiv:0809.0072v1] misses the point. A new experiment is proposed.
In a recent article, Kiukas and Werner claim to have shown that Bohmian Mechanics does not make the same empirical predictions as ordinary Quantum Mechanics. More precisely, they have shown that ordinary Quantum Mechanics predicts maximal violations of the CHSH-Bell inequality for a certain experiment in which only position measurements are performed on two noninteracting entangled free non-relativistic particles. Kiukas and Werner claim that Bohmian Mechanics doesn't predict a violation of the CHSH-Bell inequality for that experiment. We explain that such claim is wrong and that the argument …
In this paper, I respond to a critique of one of my papers previously published in this journal, entitled "Bell's Theorem Versus Local Realism in a Quaternionic Model of Physical Space." That paper presents a local-realistic model of quantum correlations based on a quaternionic 3-sphere, taken as a physical space in which we are confined to perform all our experiments. The critique, on the other hand, considers two entirely different models within a flat Euclidean space, neither related to my quaternionic 3-sphere model. It then criticizes its own flat space models and claims that it has there…
In Phys. Rev. A 101, 022117 (2020), it was argued that Bell inequalities are based on classical, not quantum, physics, and hence their violation in experiments provides no support for the claimed existence of peculiar nonlocal and superluminal influences in the real (quantum) world. This Reply to Lambare's Comment, Phys. Rev. A 104, 066201 (2021), on that paper seeks to clarify some issues related to the correct use of Hilbert space quantum mechanics for identifying the microscopic causes of later macroscopic measurement outcomes, a matter not properly addressed by Bell, who used classical hid…
Ilya Schmelzer wrote recently: {\it Nieuwenhuizen argued that there exists some "contextuality loophole" in Bell's theorem. This claim in unjustified}. It is made clear that this arose from attaching a meaning to the title and the content of the paper different from the one intended by Nieuwenhuizen. "Contextual loophole" means only that if the supplementary parameters describing measuring instruments are correctly introduced, Bell and Bell-type inequalities may not be proven. It is also stressed that a hidden variable model suffers from a "contextuality loophole" if it tries to describe diffe…
We address Gillis' recent criticism [arXiv:1506.05795] of a series of papers (by different combinations of the present authors) on formulations of Bell's theorem. Those papers intended to address an unfortunate gap of communication between two broad camps in the quantum foundations community that we identify as "operationalists" and "realists". Here, we once again urge the readers to approach the question from an unbiased standpoint, and explain that Gillis' criticism draws too heavily on the philosophical inclinations of one side of that debate -- the realist camp. As part of that explanation…
We show that the authors in the title have erred in claiming that our axiom FIN is false by conflating it with Bell locality. We also argue that the predictions of quantum mechanics, and in particular EPR, are fully Lorentz invariant, whereas the Free Will Theorem shows that theories with a mechanism of reduction, such as GRW, cannot be made fully invariant.
The general conclusion of Seevinck and Larsson is that our model exploits the so-called coincidence-time loophole and produces sinusoidal (quantum-like) correlations but does not model the singlet state because it does not violate the relevant Bell inequality derived by Larsson and Gill, since in order to obtain the sinusoidal correlations the probability of coincidences in our model goes to zero. In this reply, we refute their arguments that lead to this conclusion and demonstrate that our model can reproduce results of photon and ion-trap experiments with frequencies of coincidences that are…
Reply to "Comment on 'Experimentally adjudicating between different causal accounts of Bell-inequality violations via statistical model selection'"
本文回应 Hance 和 Hossenfelder 的评论，澄清超决定论模型的分类与“经典因果模型”含义，并论证模型包含关系不会普遍导致过拟合，过拟合仍可作为模型裁决依据。
Yes. That is my polemical reply to the titular question in Travis Norsen's self-styled "polemical response to Howard Wiseman's recent paper." Less polemically, I am pleased to see that on two of my positions --- that Bell's 1964 theorem is different from Bell's 1976 theorem, and that the former does not include Bell's one-paragraph heuristic presentation of the EPR argument --- Norsen has made significant concessions. In his response, Norsen admits that "Bell's recapitulation of the EPR argument in [the relevant] paragraph leaves something to be desired," that it "disappoints" and is "problema…
Reinhard Werner authored a comment on my paper "What Bell Did", disputing the conclusion and argumentation of the paper. This is my reply.
扫码添加微信好友，提出您的宝贵建议 👇
💡 备注请填写：网站反馈
发表机构由 AI 从论文文本抽取，如发现错误，欢迎反馈修正建议。