Bell's theorem is oft hyped every bit a real of import final result virtually the foundations of quantum mechanics. There are 2 basic problems alongside this assertion: the theorem isn't a theorem virtually quantum mechanics at all; in addition to it is non important. It is a theorem virtually local classical theories (those that were ruled out roughly 1925) in addition to its claimed importance – the proven departure betwixt classical in addition to quantum theories – must hold upwardly niggling to meet for every intelligent schoolkid.
Here, I essay to present yous some other unproblematic departure betwixt classical in addition to quantum physics that differs from the ideas inwards previous hundreds of weblog posts.
For the sake of simplicity, visit 1 qubit, the simplest nontrivial quantum system, in addition to let's depict it every bit the spin of an electron. And let's ask: What is the infinite of all possible mixed states? Those depict all possible states of the electron's spin that nosotros may know earlier some observations. While pure states are of the form\[
\ket\psi = \alpha\ket{\uparrow}+\beta\ket{\downarrow},\quad \alpha,\beta\in\CC
\] the mixed states are \(2\times 2\) Hermitian matrices. All of them may hold upwardly written every bit a combination of the unit of measurement matrix in addition to 3 Pauli matrices:\[
\rho = \frac 12 \zav{ 1+\vec n \cdot \vec \sigma }
\] The coefficient of the unit of measurement matrix had to hold upwardly \(1/2\) for the describe of \(\rho\), the total probability, to hold upwardly equal to one. Hermiticity guarantees that \(\vec n\) is a existent 3-dimensional vector. Also, the density matrix cannot accept negative eigenvalues which tells us that\[
|\vec n| \leq 1.
\] This inequality is saturated if in addition to solely if the qubit is inwards a pure solid soil i.e. if \(\exists \ket\psi:\,\,\rho =\ket\psi\bra\psi\). Excellent. So the density matrix is parameterized past times a vector alongside \(|\vec n|\leq 1\), i.e. past times a three-dimensional ball!
If yous desire to know the probability that the spin volition hold upwardly measured "up" relatively to an axis \(\vec a\) alongside \(|\vec a|=1\), in addition to then yous may define the projection operator\[
P_{\vec a} = \frac 12 \zav{ 1+\vec a \cdot \vec \sigma }
\] which has an analogous shape to the density matrix itself. And the probability is\[
P(\rho_{\vec n}=\uparrow \vec a) = {\rm Tr}(\rho_{\vec n}\cdot P_{\vec a}) = \frac 12\zav {1+\vec n\cdot \vec a}.
\] a simple linear business office of the inner production of the 2 3-dimensional vectors.
Now, what would hold upwardly the corresponding infinite classically? If at that spot were a finite let on of distinguishable classical states, their probabilities would hold upwardly \(p_i\in\RR\) in addition to these parameters would play precisely the same exercise every bit the parameters \(\vec n\) describing the density matrix above. The weather obeyed past times \(p_i\) would hold upwardly simply\[
\sum_i p_i = 1, \quad \forall i:\,\,0\leq p_i \leq 1.
\] In the \(p_i\)-space, what are these weather geometrically? Well, they define a simplex. Depending on the let on of parameters (values of the index \(i\)), nosotros larn simplices of unlike dimensions.
Now, the inquiry is whether yous tin give the sack distinguish these simplices (space of values of a probability distribution) from a ball (the corresponding infinite according to quantum mechanics).
Well, yous should hold upwardly able to distinguish simplices from balls, triangles from disks. You know, simplices are spiky in addition to accept linear faces, balls are shine in addition to all their boundaries are curved. In fact, increasing the dimension of the classical infinite (of the simplex, perchance to infinite values) makes the departure to a greater extent than brutal. The simplices snuff it "even spikier" in addition to to a greater extent than distant from the ball. That's especially truthful if yous tried to linearly projection a high-dimensional simplex to a lower-dimensional subspace, to mathematically bring the supposition that solely some of the dimensions are measurable every bit the spin in addition to other dimensions are hidden variables.
You could formulate in addition to essay out many item theorems morally showing that a ball is unlike from a simplex, indeed, but I yell upwardly it's obvious that these things accept to exist. You may only eyeball the departure betwixt simplices in addition to balls. Note that the ball's beingness "more inflated" is the argue why the correlations predicted past times quantum mechanics may plough over those inwards classical physics. Bell's inequality is just an obscure, unreadable, would-be deep mode to demonstrate something every bit simple every bit the fact that a ball differs from a simplex.
You must accept realized that quantum mechanics is ball-like because the development operators are unitary "rotations" (where squares of probability amplitudes accept constant sums, similar inwards the Pythagorean theorem) spell classical physics is simplex-like because it evolves probabilities past times stochastic matrices (where sums of probabilities inwards the columns themselves accept to hold upwardly one).
Try to yell upwardly virtually this simple ball-vs-simplex dichotomy in addition to realize that the ball-like shape is easily proven experimentally. I don't demand to visit whatsoever arbitrary contrived correlations of several spin measurements such every bit those inwards Bell's theorem. The departure betwixt classical in addition to quantum physics is absolutely obvious in addition to experiments straight essay out that the quantum mechanical response is the correct now.
Quantum mechanics doesn't allow yous to distinguish things easily
The instant departure I desire to yell is a reinterpretation of the doubtfulness regulation closely related to the depression oestrus capacities inwards our, quantum world that are impossible to hold upwardly predicted past times whatsoever realistic theories; in addition to to the fact that non-orthogonal pure states inwards quantum mechanics aren't mutually exclusive.
Let us enquire how many pure states (or states fully specified every bit points inwards the stage space, inwards classical physics) may hold upwardly distinguished if yous repeat e.g. 1 1000000 measurements alongside a organization that is prepared inwards an identical state. To accept a item organization inwards mind, yell upwardly virtually the electron's spin 1 time to a greater extent than (one qubit).
According to quantum mechanics, the pure states are given past times the vector \(\vec n\) I mentioned inwards a higher house alongside the extra status of purity, \(|\vec n| = 1\). So they belong to a sphere. How accurately tin give the sack yous mensurate the place on the sphere – the latitude in addition to the longitude – if yous are given the same initial solid soil prepared 1 1000000 times?
Well, to distinguish the axes \(\vec n_1\) in addition to \(\vec n_2\) that solely differ past times a small-scale angle \(\alpha\) on the sphere, yous demand to realize that these states volition behaviour identically alongside the probability given past times \(\vec n_1\cdot \vec n_2\) or so, or \(\cos\alpha\). If yous expand the cosine, yous volition obtain \(1-\alpha^2/2+\dots\). So the probability is solely \(\alpha^2/2\) or thence (which is much smaller than \(\alpha\)) that these 2 pure states hit some unlike result.
It agency that according to quantum mechanics, yous may solely distinguish vectors \(\vec n_1,\vec n_2\) whose relative angle is of companionship \(1/1,000\), where the denominator is the foursquare source of 1 million, the let on of repetitions of the situation. The bad resolution in addition to the effective indistinguishability of the states alongside unlike values of \(\vec n\) is just some other illustration of the doubtfulness principle.
Needless to say, inwards classical physics where an objective solid soil of the organization exists prior to the measurement, it must hold upwardly inwards regulation possible to distinguish whatsoever 2 states, fifty-fifty later on 1 measurement. If yous desire to essay out that the the world is fundamentally realist or classical, it's plenty to realize a simple task. Show a method past times which yous may mensurate the coordinates describing the pure solid soil alongside the accuracy much ameliorate than \(1/1,000\) later on 1 1000000 measurements.
In classical or realist physics, it must hold upwardly possible inwards principle. If there's something that prevents yous from that, it either shows that the classical theory is completely wrong; or it is at to the lowest degree immensely fine-tuned thence that it is hiding some degrees of liberty that should hold upwardly observable inwards principle. In both cases, it's a serious plenty occupation for your classical theory.
If nosotros depict the line of piece of work roughly in addition to qualitatively, it's only "prove that the doubtfulness regulation isn't true". If yous believe that whatsoever realist theory is right, it must hold upwardly inwards regulation possible to distinguish all the states in addition to yous should hold upwardly able to practise thence experimentally. One may say that the historical efforts to larn such extra data e.g. from the electron's spin is an experimental proof of the doubtfulness principle, of the fact that yous only can't larn whatsoever such accurate data virtually whatsoever hypothetical "objective properties" of the physical system.
You tin give the sack solely mensurate the properties probabilistically in addition to yous demand many measurements (\(N\sim 1/ (\Delta\alpha)^2\)) to mensurate the parameters describing the pure or mixed states, just similar quantum mechanics implies. If you're non a biased somebody who ever tries to insist on a predetermined dogma regardless of the facts, yous must care that these observations basically hateful that it is proven past times conduct simple experiments that the quantum mechanical framework is correct spell the classical or realist 1 is not.