2011/04/11 by Johan Hansson
Arts and Humanities · Mathematics · Physics and Astronomy · #Advanced Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics #Bell state #Bell test experiments #Bell's theorem #Computer science #Epistemology #Event (particle physics) #Hidden variable theory #Local hidden variable theory #Locality #Mathematical economics #Mathematics #Philosophy #Philosophy and History of Science #Physics #Principle of locality #Quantum #Quantum Mechanics and Applications #Quantum entanglement #Quantum mechanics #Set (abstract data type) #Simple (philosophy) #Theoretical physics #quant-ph
paper · pdf · doi:10.1155/2012/352543
published as Physics Research International, vol. 2012, Article ID 352543, 5 pages, 2012
arxiv created 2011/04/11 · openalex publication_date 2012/01/29 · arxiv updated 2015/03/18 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/05
Bell's theorem, and its experimental tests, has shown that the two premises for Bell's inequality—locality and objective reality—cannot both hold in nature, as Bell's inequality is broken. A simple test is proposed, which for the first time may decide which alternative nature actually prefers on the fundamental, quantum level. If each microscopic event is truly random (e.g., as assumed in orthodox quantum mechanics) objective reality is not valid whereas if each event is described by an unknown but deterministic mechanism (“hidden variables”) locality is not valid. This may be analyzed and decided by the well-known reconstruction method of Ruelle and Takens; in the former case no structure should be discerned, in the latter a reconstructed structure should be visible. This could in principle be tested by comparing individual “hits” in a double-slit experiment, but in practice a single fluorescent atom, and its (seemingly random) temporal switching between active/inactive states would possibly be better/more practical, easier to set up, observe, and analyze. However, only imagination limits the list of possible experimental setups.