Advertisement

Foundations of Physics

, Volume 36, Issue 10, pp 1573–1586 | Cite as

The Quantum World is not Built up from Correlations

  • Michael Seevinck
Article

It is known that the global state of a composite quantum system can be completely determined by specifying correlations between measurements performed on subsystems only. Despite the fact that the quantum correlations thus suffice to reconstruct the quantum state, we show, using a Bell inequality argument, that they cannot be regarded as objective local properties of the composite system in question. It is well known since the work of Bell, that one cannot have locally preexistent values for all physical quantities, whether they are deterministic or stochastic. The Bell inequality argument we present here shows this is also impossible for correlations among subsystems of an individual isolated composite system. Neither of them can be used to build up a world consisting of some local realistic structure. As a corrolary to the result we argue that entanglement cannot be considered ontologically robust. The Bell inequality argument has an important advantage over others because it does not need perfect correlations but only statistical correlations. It can therefore easily be tested in currently feasible experiments using four particle entanglement.

Keywords

ontology quantum correlations Bell inequality entanglement 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bell J.S. (1964). “On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox”. Physics 1, 195Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    N. D. Mermin, in a series of papers, tried to defend this fundamental interpretational difference between values of quantities and correlations. N. D. Mermin, “What is quantum mechanics trying to tell us?,”Am. J. Phys. 66, 753 (1998); “What do these correlations know about reality? Nonlocality and the absurd,”Found. Phys. 29, 571 (1999); “The Ithaca interpretation of quantum mechanics,” Pramana 51, 549 (1998).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cabello A. (1999). “Quantum correlations are not contained in the initial state”. Phys. Rev. A 60, 877CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jordan T.F. (1999). “Quantum correlations violate Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen assumptions”. Phys. Rev. A 60: 2726MathSciNetCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kochen S., Specker E.P. (1967). “The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics”. J. Math. Mech. 17, 59zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    D. M. Greenberger, M. A. Horne, and A. Zeilinger, “Going beyond Bell’s theorem,” in Bell’s theorem, Quantum Theory and Conceptions of the Universe. M. Kafatos, ed. (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 1989), p. 69; D. M. Greenberger, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and A. Zeilinger, “Bell’s theorem without inequalities,” Am. J. Phys. 58, 1131 (1990).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hardy L. (1993). “Nonlocality for two particles without inequalities for almost all states”. Phys. Rev. Lett. 71: 1665zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. Barrett, “Information processing in non-signalling theories,” Los Alamos e-print archive, http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0508211.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    W. K. Wootters, “Local accessibility of quantum states,” in Complexity, Entropy and the Physics of Information. W. H. Zurek, ed. (Addison-Wesley, Boston, 1990), p. 39.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    See the first paper by Mermin in Ref. 2.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. F. Clauser, W. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt, “Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theories,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 880 (1969).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cirelson B.S. (1980). “Quantum generalizations of Bell’s inequality”. Lett. Math. Phys. 4, 93MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Landau L.J. (1987). “On the violation of Bell’s inequality in quantum theory”. Phys. Lett. A. 120, 54MathSciNetCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Werner R.F., (1989). “Quantum states with Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen correlations admitting a hidden-variable model”. Phys. Rev. A 40: 4277CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Seevinck M., Uffink J. (2001). “Sufficient conditions for three-particle entanglement and their tests in recent experiments”. Phys. Rev. A 65, 012107CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Żukowski M., Zeilinger A., Horne M.A., Ekert A.K. (1993). “Event-ready-detectors’ Bell experiment via entanglement swapping”. Phys. Rev. Lett. 71: 4287CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Timpson C.G., Brown H.R. (2005). “Proper and improper separability”. Int. J. Quantum. Inf. 3: 679zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    C. A. Sackett et al., “Experimental entanglement of four particles,” Nature 404, 256 (2000); Z. Zhao et al., “Experimental violation of local realism by four-photon Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger entanglement,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 180401 (2003); Z. Zhao et al., “Experimental demonstration of five-photon entanglement and open-destination teleportation,” Nature (London) 430, 54 (2004); M. Eibl et al., “Experimental observation of four-photon entanglement from parametric down-conversion,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 200403 (2003).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of History and Foundations of ScienceUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations