Skip to main content
added 129 characters in body
Source Link
hodop smith
  • 713
  • 4
  • 14

A pion decays to a singlet electron/positron state. We will measure the component of the electron's spin in the $\vec a$ direction and positron's spin in the $\vec b$ direction. If there exists a local hidden variable(s) $\lambda$, then outcomes of the measurements must be given by functions $A(\vec a,\lambda)$ and $B(\vec b,\lambda)$ respectively. these functions can only output the values $\pm1$ (in units of $\hbar/2$.) Due to entanglement and the case of $\vec a=\vec b$, we may write $B(\vec b,\lambda)=-A(\vec b,\lambda)$. We also assume a non-negative probability density $\rho(\lambda)$ which integrates to unity over all of space. Then Bell's inequality follows in the usual way.

This is my question: What is it in the above definitions for $\lambda$ that makes it "local"?

Griffiths writes the following:

enter image description here

A local variable is one whose information and correlations propagate at most atIs the speed of light but I do not seelocality condition only that written to our definitions for $\lambda$. If information could propagate in the$A$ is strictly not a function of $\lambda$ direction faster than the speed$\vec b$ (and $B$ not of light$\vec a$), how would that confound the ingredients to the inequalitywhich could not be ruled out for FTL signals?

A pion decays to a singlet electron/positron state. We will measure the component of the electron's spin in the $\vec a$ direction and positron's spin in the $\vec b$ direction. If there exists a local hidden variable(s) $\lambda$, then outcomes of the measurements must be given by functions $A(\vec a,\lambda)$ and $B(\vec b,\lambda)$ respectively. these functions can only output the values $\pm1$ (in units of $\hbar/2$.) Due to entanglement and the case of $\vec a=\vec b$, we may write $B(\vec b,\lambda)=-A(\vec b,\lambda)$. We also assume a non-negative probability density $\rho(\lambda)$ which integrates to unity over all of space. Then Bell's inequality follows in the usual way.

This is my question: What is it in the above definitions for $\lambda$ that makes it "local"?

Griffiths writes the following:

enter image description here

A local variable is one whose information and correlations propagate at most at the speed of light but I do not see that written to our definitions for $\lambda$. If information could propagate in the $\lambda$ direction faster than the speed of light, how would that confound the ingredients to the inequality?

A pion decays to a singlet electron/positron state. We will measure the component of the electron's spin in the $\vec a$ direction and positron's spin in the $\vec b$ direction. If there exists a local hidden variable(s) $\lambda$, then outcomes of the measurements must be given by functions $A(\vec a,\lambda)$ and $B(\vec b,\lambda)$ respectively. these functions can only output the values $\pm1$ (in units of $\hbar/2$.) Due to entanglement and the case of $\vec a=\vec b$, we may write $B(\vec b,\lambda)=-A(\vec b,\lambda)$. We also assume a non-negative probability density $\rho(\lambda)$ which integrates to unity over all of space. Then Bell's inequality follows in the usual way.

This is my question: What is it in the above definitions for $\lambda$ that makes it "local"?

Griffiths writes the following:

enter image description here

Is the locality condition only that $A$ is strictly not a function of $\vec b$ (and $B$ not of $\vec a$), which could not be ruled out for FTL signals?

Source Link
hodop smith
  • 713
  • 4
  • 14

What is local about the hidden variable in Bell's theorem?

A pion decays to a singlet electron/positron state. We will measure the component of the electron's spin in the $\vec a$ direction and positron's spin in the $\vec b$ direction. If there exists a local hidden variable(s) $\lambda$, then outcomes of the measurements must be given by functions $A(\vec a,\lambda)$ and $B(\vec b,\lambda)$ respectively. these functions can only output the values $\pm1$ (in units of $\hbar/2$.) Due to entanglement and the case of $\vec a=\vec b$, we may write $B(\vec b,\lambda)=-A(\vec b,\lambda)$. We also assume a non-negative probability density $\rho(\lambda)$ which integrates to unity over all of space. Then Bell's inequality follows in the usual way.

This is my question: What is it in the above definitions for $\lambda$ that makes it "local"?

Griffiths writes the following:

enter image description here

A local variable is one whose information and correlations propagate at most at the speed of light but I do not see that written to our definitions for $\lambda$. If information could propagate in the $\lambda$ direction faster than the speed of light, how would that confound the ingredients to the inequality?