456:
classical model can be construed because the inequalities apear so obvious. But, the author would like to add, the argumentation is also used in a prohibitive way by preventing the model to see daylight and attract attention of other scientists that may form their own opinion. This part of the "we are not wrong, hence you are" argumentation is not so nice, but ok we are humans too. The funny part is that the opponents of the LHV theories fail to see one extra nicety of LHV, namely, it explains the unexplainable. Namely, it replaces the mysterious non-local interaction from qm for entities that can be accessed in principle with experimental methods. If one wants to argue that in this way there is a return to
Classical Physics well so be it. The author would like to note that in 1995 he published a paper in which it is demonstrated that Dirac's relativistic quantum mechanical equation can be obtained from Maxwell's classical field equations (J.F. Geurdes, Phys. Rev. E 51, 5151 (1995)). Perhaps that a deeper understanding of the quantum in the classical physics and the classical in the quantum physics may finally tear down the artificial barrier between the two concepts.
368:"which has always been considered a desirable property by physicists" - that statement is lacking a neutral point of view. While that was once considered a desirable feature by the majority of physicists, I don't believe that it is nearly unanimus today. The Orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics (Something like Von Neumann - Dirac's interpretation) is certainly not local. In fact, quantum mechanics is generally nonlocal and repreated experimental violations of Bell's inequality are (so far) unexplainable by anything other than nonlocal hidden variable theory, or nonlocal no hidden variable theory. Maybe one could introduce a fairly exotic mechanism to get around it (like the hidden time) mentioned in the article, I don't know. But for the moment, locality is dead in the minds of most phycisists.
200:
95:
85:
64:
190:
169:
391:
assuming that detector responses not exactly proportional to intentities but, instead, are such that all very weak signals are ignored, we find Malus' law replaced by one that is similar in that is has peaks at the same places but has wider troughs. If the troughs are zero then when we integrate over polarisation directions (our HV) we can get predicted coincidence curves with visibility anything up to 1, in agreement with QM.
33:
444:
contrast) that makes life very difficult for the concept of local hidden causality. That is the most clever contribution to science. Namely construe a (set of) restrictions such that only quantum mechanical correlation (i.e. distant interaction or non-local interaction or ... ) can violate that restriction.
806:: Bell provides a local hidden-variable model for pure states of and von Neumann measurements on a qubit in section 3 of his 1964 paper. He then goes on to point out how the specific correlations studied in the original EPR paper can be given an explanation using local hidden variables. It's related to
455:
Of course opponents will argue that the proposed model cannot be right because their derivations and experimentations cannot be wrong. This sounds just like dogmatism and totalitarian regimes but in fact it is not. The author agrees with the opponents of LHV on one point, namely, it is strange that a
447:
Nevertheless and despite of the most rigourous test, I claim to have obtained a local hidden variables model that: 1. can " recover with any precision necessary" the quantum correlation between the two distant particles that travel to A and B, 2. This violation "goes" under locality conditions (A's
376:
hidden variable theories, invoking nothing exotic, you have to thank Dr
Chinese, who, earlier this year, was the prime mover in deleting all references to my own work and removing the page on the Bell Test Loopholes. It is the loopholes in the real experiments that make local HV theories possible as
439:
It is understandabable that a layman asks about the definition of LHV theories. And, indeed LHV theories are a result of Bell's way of looking at the subject. There could be some comfort in the idea that when scientists talk about local hidden variables nobody, including the scientists, really knows
720:
I'm not an expert in this field (which is why I'm reading the article) but the graph in figure 1 appears to be wrong or at least inconsistent with the explanations in the text. For figure 1, if the experiment considers two atoms with opposite spins then for detectors with the same angle (a - b = 0)
740:
I believe "In particular, a measurement on one particle in one place can alter the probability distribution for the outcomes of a measurement on the other particle at a different location" This may be really really wrong or really really misleading. please someone with actual credentials follow up
630:
This page gives a jolly good description of Bell's inequality as it relates to coincidences between events. In fact it may even be better than the one in the Bell's theorem page. This does not appear consistent. Don't get me wrong- they both describe the theory accurately, but it seems odd that I,
482:
clarification of "loophole theories" in first paragraph? to me, the mention of loopholes in the first paragraph doesn't make it clear that a very significant loophole is simply experimental issues around detection efficiency; although as I understand it those can be covered by an extra theoretical
412:
As a layman, I don't see an actual definition of the subject. Something like 'Local Hidden
Variables are a characteristic of quantum particles, which each entangled particle carries which causes it to react the same way to a given measurment at a particular time no matter how far apart they are'.
390:
If you read the current local HV theory page carefully, you will find hints as to how these theories work as regards exploitation of the "detection loophole". This is the loophole that is related to possibility of altering the assumptions so as to get away from exact adherence to Malus' law. By
443:
However, we can talk about restrictions in the results we can observe in experiment. In this way a differentiation between quantum mechanical and LHV can be formulated. The restrictions are known as the Bell inequalities. A special branch is the
Clauser Horne Shimony and Holt contrast (i.e. CHSH
278:
This page still states that "but local hidden variable theory can still explain the probabilistic nature of quantum measurement due to loopholes in experimental Bell tests." This hasn't been true for a few months (doi:10.1038/nature15759). The Bell's
Theorem/Inequalities page has already been
307:
Newtonian gravitation is not local, true, but even Newton felt there was something wrong with
Newtonian gravitation because it of that. (As well as other critics with their criticism of action-at-a-distance) And Newtonian gravitation was replaced by General Relativity , which IS local (and
631:
somebody trying to understand the theory, should appeal to two different explanations within
Knowledge (XXG). Would it be better to combine the explanations of this topic from different pages and agree on some sort of consistent "definitive" (heaven forbid) description?
381:
results. What no local HV theory can do, though, is reproduce exactly the QM prediction. The latter assumes perfect conditions and has never been tested. This is why efforts to devise a genuinely "loophole-free" test continue. See my user page for more, including the
801:
I disagree. People have been proposing local hidden variable models for a long time, whether to reproduce part of quantum mechanics or to try to get around Bell's theorem somehow. (The former is much more respectable than the latter.) I restored the content removed in
451:
The use of probability arises from the idea that the local hidden variables are 'weighted' entities that, because a return to classical concepts like causality and locality, should also follow classical probability laws. I refer to my arXiv:0811.1746 paper.
831:
Thanks for restoring the edit, I was wrong about Bell's article. But the
Gleason theorem claim is not clear in the article and the reference adds nothing. I don't understand from the article what it has to do with local hidden variables.
786:
Or just delete this article. The content does not match the title. An article about local hidden variables should explain what variables are at issue, how/why they must/can be hidden, and why "local" must be added. None of that here.
721:
the expectation value as defined will be -1 (0 + 0 - 1/2 - 1/2) whereas the graph shows it to be +1. Either the explanation is wrong or I think the abscissa of the graph should be from -180 to +180 not 0 to 360.
878:
I think it is priority to have a local hidden variables article because it is the one that is well defined. Hidden variables needs more exploration but can be very difficult to expand objectively.--
151:
448:
result cannot be influenced by what we measure on the B side and vice versa) 3. The proposed hidden variables model can violate the CHSH contrast and 4. the model uses classical probability.
930:
320:
I don't see any reason for the NPOV warning in the article. I can't see any discussion going on about the NPOV here, either. It seems like some disargreement has been going on between
365:
The artical really needs a summary of what it actually means and if it is violated or confirmed by real results. Apart from that i dont see the reason for the non-NPOV warning
594:
567:
540:
308:
realistic), before the quantum mechanics of the 1920s. So you could say that local realism was indeed a guiding principle (of all valid physics) before qm. Pedantically,
394:
Incidentally, as regards a possible timing loophole, I don't think any of the ones mentioned are relevant. There is one that may well be, though. See a paper of mine:
864:
can cover all the proposals that are nonlocal, contextual, etc. It could probably work either as two articles or as one, but I'm currently inclined to keep it as two.
256:
915:
141:
925:
910:
246:
117:
199:
920:
722:
222:
873:
823:
286:
108:
69:
300:
Changed the statement about local realism guiding all scientific endaveor before QM. Newtonian gravity is not a local realist theory.
748:
647:
420:
468:
213:
174:
44:
606:
598:
499:
814:, i.e., an assignment of probabilities to measurement outcomes that can't be written as an application of the Born rule.
345:
705:
846:
What do you think about merging? Isn't the context for "local hidden variables" is a subset of hidden-variables?
726:
887:
855:
841:
290:
50:
32:
828:
Perhaps "people have been proposing local hidden variable models" but that is not apparent from this article.
811:
752:
643:
424:
472:
744:
635:
616:
487:
464:
428:
416:
282:
861:
764:
701:
399:
341:
325:
309:
869:
851:
837:
819:
792:
776:
639:
349:
221:
on
Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
116:
on
Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
94:
612:
383:
686:
671:
651:
328:, but no discussion is taking place at all and the proble seems to be solved. The warning should be
321:
667:
807:
495:
100:
17:
659:
84:
63:
883:
658:
I have to agree with this, this entire page, as well-developed as it is, seems to represent a
572:
545:
518:
340:
IMHO the article doesn't match its lemma and what's to be said about LHVTs should be said in
865:
847:
833:
815:
788:
772:
796:
780:
756:
730:
709:
690:
682:
620:
503:
476:
402:
301:
294:
663:
205:
904:
491:
879:
353:
483:
postulate, practically they are subject to removal through improved technology.
333:
189:
168:
113:
542:
curves. Squared real number curves are never negative. They are closer to 2
195:
90:
696:
Dear Prof. Gill, thanks for your precious contributions to wikipedia. I made
860:
I think it could be expanded into a worthwhile page in its own right, while
218:
596:
curve. Here's an attempt to attach the correct versions: Figure 1:
681:
Local realism redirects to this page but is not mentioned at all.
395:
26:
569:- 1 curves. Similarly, Figure 1 probably is suppose to be a
700:
to the local realism #redirect. I hope this helps. Cheers.
435:
Here is a possible model (hence implicitly a definition)
810:
because if you don't average over the hidden variable,
803:
697:
372:
Ahem! For the absence of explanation of the possible
741:
and fix this. Just want to bring attention to this.
575:
548:
521:
608:
File:C:\Ken\Ken's Original Files\Physics\Figure2.jpg
600:
File:C:\Ken\Ken's Original Files\Physics\Figure1.jpg
217:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
112:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
588:
561:
534:
771:Do we need two articles now? This one is short.
931:Start-Class physics articles of High-importance
812:you get a counterexample to Gleason's theorem
8:
30:
742:
280:
279:updated; I suggest someone does so here.
163:
58:
605:
597:
580:
574:
553:
547:
526:
520:
736:Explanation in paragraph 3 is screwed up
626:Competing explanation of Bell's theorem
165:
126:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Mathematics
60:
7:
211:This article is within the scope of
106:This article is within the scope of
231:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Physics
49:It is of interest to the following
916:High-priority mathematics articles
716:Figure 1 graph appears to be wrong
25:
18:Talk:Local hidden variable theory
926:High-importance physics articles
911:Start-Class mathematics articles
198:
188:
167:
129:Template:WikiProject Mathematics
93:
83:
62:
31:
251:This article has been rated as
146:This article has been rated as
440:what they are talking about.
407:
1:
652:02:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
477:19:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
403:09:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
396:http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph
348:is just another spinoff from
295:01:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
225:and see a list of open tasks.
120:and see a list of open tasks.
921:Start-Class physics articles
888:09:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
874:18:13, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
856:17:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
842:17:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
824:17:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
797:16:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
781:14:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
731:11:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
621:23:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
346:Local hidden variable theory
234:Template:WikiProject Physics
429:15:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
947:
672:09:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
515:Figure 2 does not contain
504:22:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
257:project's importance scale
710:16:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
589:{\displaystyle \cos ^{2}}
562:{\displaystyle \cos ^{2}}
535:{\displaystyle \cos ^{2}}
377:explanations for all the
336:11:43, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
312:01:09, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
304:07:15, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
250:
183:
145:
78:
57:
757:09:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
691:16:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
356:13:51, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
152:project's priority scale
625:
109:WikiProject Mathematics
862:hidden-variable theory
765:hidden-variable theory
590:
563:
536:
408:Where's the definition
342:Hidden variable theory
39:This article is rated
591:
564:
537:
350:Bell test experiments
43:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
573:
546:
519:
132:mathematics articles
214:WikiProject Physics
586:
559:
532:
274:Hanson experiments
101:Mathematics portal
45:content assessment
808:Gleason's theorem
759:
747:comment added by
702:Maurice Carbonaro
670:
655:
638:comment added by
507:
490:comment added by
467:comment added by
431:
419:comment added by
400:Caroline Thompson
326:Caroline Thompson
297:
285:comment added by
271:
270:
267:
266:
263:
262:
162:
161:
158:
157:
16:(Redirected from
938:
666:
654:
632:
611:
609:
603:
601:
595:
593:
592:
587:
585:
584:
568:
566:
565:
560:
558:
557:
541:
539:
538:
533:
531:
530:
506:
484:
479:
414:
344:. The actual of
239:
238:
237:physics articles
235:
232:
229:
208:
203:
202:
192:
185:
184:
179:
171:
164:
134:
133:
130:
127:
124:
103:
98:
97:
87:
80:
79:
74:
66:
59:
42:
36:
35:
27:
21:
946:
945:
941:
940:
939:
937:
936:
935:
901:
900:
769:
738:
723:130.246.132.178
718:
679:
633:
628:
607:
599:
576:
571:
570:
549:
544:
543:
522:
517:
516:
513:
485:
480:
462:
437:
410:
363:
318:
276:
253:High-importance
236:
233:
230:
227:
226:
204:
197:
178:High‑importance
177:
131:
128:
125:
122:
121:
99:
92:
72:
40:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
944:
942:
934:
933:
928:
923:
918:
913:
903:
902:
899:
898:
897:
896:
895:
894:
893:
892:
891:
890:
844:
829:
768:
761:
737:
734:
717:
714:
713:
712:
678:
675:
627:
624:
583:
579:
556:
552:
529:
525:
512:
509:
461:
459:
436:
433:
409:
406:
388:
387:
362:
359:
358:
357:
317:
314:
310:67.118.118.112
287:145.132.49.101
275:
272:
269:
268:
265:
264:
261:
260:
249:
243:
242:
240:
223:the discussion
210:
209:
206:Physics portal
193:
181:
180:
172:
160:
159:
156:
155:
144:
138:
137:
135:
118:the discussion
105:
104:
88:
76:
75:
67:
55:
54:
48:
37:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
943:
932:
929:
927:
924:
922:
919:
917:
914:
912:
909:
908:
906:
889:
885:
881:
877:
876:
875:
871:
867:
863:
859:
858:
857:
853:
849:
845:
843:
839:
835:
830:
827:
826:
825:
821:
817:
813:
809:
805:
800:
799:
798:
794:
790:
785:
784:
783:
782:
778:
774:
766:
762:
760:
758:
754:
750:
749:99.10.122.186
746:
735:
733:
732:
728:
724:
715:
711:
707:
703:
699:
695:
694:
693:
692:
688:
684:
677:Local realism
676:
674:
673:
669:
665:
661:
656:
653:
649:
645:
641:
640:Trumpetboy101
637:
623:
622:
618:
614:
610:
602:
581:
577:
554:
550:
527:
523:
511:Cos Sq Curves
510:
508:
505:
501:
497:
493:
489:
478:
474:
470:
466:
460:
457:
453:
449:
445:
441:
434:
432:
430:
426:
422:
421:160.42.234.85
418:
405:
404:
401:
397:
392:
385:
380:
375:
371:
370:
369:
366:
360:
355:
351:
347:
343:
339:
338:
337:
335:
331:
327:
323:
316:NPOV warning?
315:
313:
311:
305:
303:
298:
296:
292:
288:
284:
273:
258:
254:
248:
245:
244:
241:
224:
220:
216:
215:
207:
201:
196:
194:
191:
187:
186:
182:
176:
173:
170:
166:
153:
149:
148:High-priority
143:
140:
139:
136:
119:
115:
111:
110:
102:
96:
91:
89:
86:
82:
81:
77:
73:High‑priority
71:
68:
65:
61:
56:
52:
46:
38:
34:
29:
28:
19:
770:
743:— Preceding
739:
719:
683:Richard Gill
680:
657:
634:— Preceding
629:
514:
481:
469:84.82.11.120
458:
454:
450:
446:
442:
438:
411:
393:
389:
384:deleted page
378:
373:
367:
364:
329:
319:
306:
299:
281:— Preceding
277:
252:
212:
147:
107:
51:WikiProjects
848:Johnjbarton
834:Johnjbarton
789:Johnjbarton
773:Johnjbarton
763:Merge with
698:this change
613:KenHoldeman
486:—Preceding
463:—Preceding
415:—Preceding
123:Mathematics
114:mathematics
70:Mathematics
41:Start-class
905:Categories
866:XOR'easter
816:XOR'easter
604:Figure 2:
302:Roadrunner
804:this edit
322:DrChinese
745:unsigned
660:WP:CFORK
648:contribs
636:unsigned
500:contribs
492:RiceMilk
488:unsigned
465:unsigned
417:unsigned
379:observed
283:unsigned
880:ReyHahn
361:Summary
354:Pjacobi
330:removed
255:on the
228:Physics
219:Physics
175:Physics
150:on the
334:CWitte
47:scale.
374:local
884:talk
870:talk
852:talk
838:talk
820:talk
793:talk
777:talk
753:talk
727:talk
706:talk
687:talk
668:(𒁳)
662:. --
644:talk
617:talk
496:talk
473:talk
425:talk
352:. --
324:and
291:talk
247:High
142:High
664:dab
578:cos
551:cos
524:cos
332:.--
907::
886:)
872:)
854:)
840:)
822:)
795:)
779:)
755:)
729:)
708:)
689:)
650:)
646:•
619:)
502:)
498:•
475:)
427:)
398:.
293:)
882:(
868:(
850:(
836:(
818:(
791:(
775:(
767:?
751:(
725:(
704:(
685:(
642:(
615:(
582:2
555:2
528:2
494:(
471:(
423:(
386:.
289:(
259:.
154:.
53::
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
