Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen & Bell

R.1.4 proved that no atom carries a little arrow whose projections the analyzer reads off — and then deliberately left a door open, because a cleverer hidden mechanism might still work. This lesson shuts the door. Two atoms, three analyzer settings, one counting argument: any theory in which the atoms leave the source carrying complete instructions makes a prediction quantum mechanics violates, and nature sides with quantum mechanics.

Learning Objectives

After this lesson you will be able to:

1. Write the two-atom singlet state, prove it has the same form in every basis, and derive its perfect anticorrelation along any shared axis.
2. State the EPR argument in Bohm's spin form — what "element of reality" means, and precisely which premise quantum mechanics denies.
3. Prove the no-communication theorem for this setup: show that one wing's statistics are independent of the other wing's setting and outcome, and explain why the frame-dependence of "first" is therefore harmless.
4. Explain why the classical coin analogy reproduces same-axis data and fails everywhere else, and state what a local hidden variable theory must supply.
5. Compute both predictions for the three-setting Bell experiment — the quantum $\tfrac12$ and the local-realist bound $\ge\tfrac59$ — and identify the four ingredients any Bell test needs.
6. Work the four-setting variant, show that both theories predict $\tfrac12$ there, and explain why the choice of settings is part of the experiment's design rather than a detail.

Intuition

Everything so far has involved one atom at a time. Two atoms are where the trouble starts.

Build a source that emits atoms in pairs, flying apart in opposite directions, prepared so that their spins are always found opposite — whenever the left analyzer says $+$, the right one says $-$. That much is unremarkable; a machine that mails a left shoe to Tokyo and a right shoe to Toronto has the same property, and nobody thinks the shoes are talking to each other.

Now the part that is not like shoes. The anticorrelation holds along every axis, provided the two analyzers agree on which axis. Vertical and vertical: always opposite. Horizontal and horizontal: always opposite. Both tilted $37°$: always opposite. And along each of these axes, each individual result is 50–50 random.

Try to build that out of shoes. A shoe is a left shoe, period; there is no measurement you can make on a shoe that comes out random. To reproduce our source with objects that carry definite properties, each atom would have to carry an answer for every possible axis — a complete instruction set, prepared at the source, with the right atom's instructions the exact complement of the left's. That is exactly the patch Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen proposed in 1935: quantum mechanics is not wrong, just incomplete; the atoms carry hidden variables and the theory does not mention them.

It is an excellent idea. It is local, it is realistic, it explains all the data above, and it dissolves the spookiness completely. And in 1964 John Bell found a way to test it — not test some particular hidden-variable model, but test every possible one at once — by looking at what happens when the two analyzers are set to different axes. The instruction-set hypothesis, it turns out, forces an inequality on the statistics. Quantum mechanics violates it. Experiment agrees with quantum mechanics [Fre, §2.3].

That is the whole lesson. The rest is making each step airtight.

Theory

Two atoms, and the notation for them

The state space of two spin-$\tfrac12$ atoms is the tensor product $\mathbb{C}^2\otimes\mathbb{C}^2 = \mathbb{C}^4$, with product basis $\lvert{+z}\rangle\otimes\lvert{+z}\rangle$ and its three companions. That is four symbols too many, so we compact it: the left slot is the left-moving atom, the right slot the right-moving one,

and we use this comma notation for the rest of the lesson. The formal treatment of the tensor product is 1.4.1 Multi-Qubit States; all we need here is that it exists and that operators on one atom act on their own slot.

The source we need emits the singlet state

the total-spin-zero combination of two spin-$\tfrac12$ particles. It is not exotic: it is the ground state of the electron pair in a hydrogen molecule, and Bohm's 1951 proposal was simply to dissociate such a molecule without disturbing the spins. This is one of the four Bell states of 1.4.2 Bell States, where its circuit construction is given; here we care only about its correlations.

The singlet looks the same from every angle

The single most useful fact about $\lvert{\Psi^-}\rangle$ is that its form does not depend on the basis you write it in. Take the rotated basis of R.1.2, $c = \cos(\theta/2)$, $s = \sin(\theta/2)$:

Expand the two product terms:

Subtract. The $\lvert{+z,+z}\rangle$ and $\lvert{-z,-z}\rangle$ terms cancel identically, and $c^2 + s^2 = 1$ collapses the rest:

The singlet is rotationally invariant — it is the unique two-qubit state with that property, and the source therefore needs no preferred axis. Two consequences follow immediately.

Perfect anticorrelation along any shared axis. Written in the $\hat n$ basis, $\lvert{\Psi^-}\rangle$ contains no $\lvert{+\hat n,+\hat n}\rangle$ and no $\lvert{-\hat n,-\hat n}\rangle$ term, so if both analyzers are set to $\hat n$ the outcomes are opposite with probability 1, whatever $\hat n$ is.

Each wing alone is featureless. The two branches have equal weight in every basis, so each analyzer on its own reports 50–50 no matter how it is oriented. All the structure lives in the correlation.

Correlations at a relative angle

Set the left analyzer to $\hat a$ and the right to $\hat b$, with relative angle $\theta$. Suppose the left registers $+$; by the anticorrelation just proved, the right-hand atom then behaves exactly as though it had been prepared in $\lvert{-\hat a}\rangle$. Applying the $\cos^2(\theta/2)$ law of R.1.2 to that state and the analyzer $\hat b$:

The same holds with all signs flipped, and each left outcome has probability $\tfrac12$, so overall

Sanity checks: $\theta = 0$ gives perfect anticorrelation, $\theta = 180°$ gives perfect correlation (one analyzer reversed relabels its ports), and $\theta = 90°$ gives $\tfrac12$ — no correlation at all. Those three cases are exactly the ones a hidden-variable theory finds easy, which is why Bell had to look elsewhere.

flowchart LR
    LA["left analyzer<br/>setting a"] --> LD["+ or -"]
    SRC["EPR source<br/>singlet pairs"] --> LA
    SRC --> RA["right analyzer<br/>setting b"]
    RA --> RD["+ or -"]
    LD -.->|"compare later"| CMP["P(opposite)<br/>= cos²(θ/2)"]
    RD -.-> CMP

The EPR argument

Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen asked what this correlation implies about the world, and their argument is tighter than its reputation [EPR35].

Their criterion: if, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of reality corresponding to that quantity. It is a modest-sounding principle, and deliberately so — it is meant to be the least a realist could ask for.

Now run it on the singlet. The two atoms are far apart. Measure the left atom along $z$; the right atom's $z$ result is then certain. By the criterion, the right atom's $z$ projection is an element of reality. But we could equally have chosen $x$, in which case the right atom's $x$ projection would be an element of reality. And — this is the crucial step — the two choices are made on the left, arbitrarily far away. If the left analyzer cannot influence the right atom (locality), then whatever is real about the right atom was real before the choice was made. So the right atom must possess definite $z$ and $x$ projections simultaneously.

Quantum mechanics says no such state exists: $[S_z, S_x] = i\hbar S_y \ne 0$ (R.1.4). EPR concluded that quantum mechanics is therefore incomplete — an accurate statistical summary of a deeper theory whose variables it does not name. Note what they did not claim: they never said quantum mechanics makes wrong predictions. Their charge was that it is not the whole story.

The argument is valid. Its premises are locality and the reality criterion, and one of them has to go. Einstein was clear about which one he wanted to keep: he had spent a career removing action at a distance from gravity and had no appetite for putting it back into mechanics. What he called spooky action at a distance was the alternative he was arguing against, not a description of his own view.

Historical note. Podolsky, without Einstein's knowledge, gave the paper to The New York Times, which ran it on the front page as Einstein disproving quantum mechanics. Einstein was furious — physics is settled among physicists, not in the press — and never spoke to him again. It is a useful reminder that the paper's fame and its argument are two different things.

Does the spookiness need delayed choice?

Freericks poses this as a problem [Fre, §2.3.1], and it is worth answering carefully because the intuitive answer is wrong.

No, delayed choice is not required. Place the left analyzer slightly closer to the source, so the left atom is measured first in the lab frame, and set both analyzers to $z$ from the start. The left result is random; the right result is determined by it; and no signal could have travelled between them in time. The correlation is already unexplainable by anything that happens after the pair separates. What delayed choice adds is the closing of a specific loophole — the possibility that the atoms somehow knew the analyzer settings in advance and coordinated accordingly. Rotating an analyzer while the atoms are in flight removes that escape, which is why Aspect's group built rapidly switching analyzers in the 1980s. But it is a hardening of the experiment, not the source of the puzzle.

The no-communication theorem

Before any of this can be called spooky, we must rule out the obvious worry: does the correlation let you send a message faster than light? It does not, and the proof is short enough to do here.

Let the pair be in any joint state $\lvert{\Psi}\rangle$. Alice, on the left, chooses a measurement — some complete set of orthogonal projectors $\{P_i\}$ on her factor, with $\sum_i P_i = \mathbb{1}$ — and gets outcome $i$ with probability $p_i$. Bob, on the right, knows neither her choice nor her outcome. His state is the average over her outcomes, weighted by their probabilities:

Cyclicity of the trace over Alice's factor lets us combine the two projectors into $P_i^2 = P_i$, and then completeness collapses the sum:

Bob's reduced state is the one he would have had if Alice had done nothing at all. It does not depend on which observable she measured, or whether she measured. For the singlet it is $\rho_B = \tfrac12\mathbb{1}$ — maximally mixed, 50–50 along every axis, forever. This is the no-communication theorem, and it is the reason entanglement coexists peacefully with relativity.

The physical reading is worth stating plainly. Alice does learn Bob's outcome instantly. But she cannot choose it, because her own outcome is random; all she can send down her wing is a fair coin. A correlation only becomes a message when the two halves are compared, and comparing requires a classical channel running at or below the speed of light.

There is a bonus. Because no signal is needed, the fact that "which measurement happened first" is frame-dependent causes no trouble. Take the left analyzer at $z$, the right at $x$. Analyzed left-first: the left gives $\pm$ at random, the right atom is then $\mp z$, and measuring it along $x$ gives 50–50 — uncorrelated. Analyzed right-first: the right gives $\pm$ at random, the left atom is then $\mp x$, and measuring along $z$ gives 50–50 — uncorrelated. Both orderings give identical predictions, as they must, because the joint probabilities are computed from one state and two commuting observables. A theory that required a signal would have to say which way it went, and relativity refuses to tell it.

The coin analogy, and where it breaks

The standard way to defuse the spookiness is a story about coins. A dealer in London posts a gold coin to one customer and a silver coin to the other, choosing at random who gets which. When the customer in Tokyo opens their parcel and sees gold, they know instantly that Toronto has silver. Nothing travelled; the correlation was packed at the source.

For same-axis measurements this analogy is exactly right, and it is important to concede that. If we only ever set both analyzers to $z$, the data are indistinguishable from coins, and anyone insisting on spookiness is overreading them.

It breaks in two places [Fre, §2.3.3].

First, the coins have values in transit and the atoms do not. A gold coin is gold in the envelope. The singlet, by contrast, has no fact of the matter about which side is $+$ until a measurement is made — and R.1.4's conundrum of projections already showed that assigning such a fact to a single atom fails. The coin story reproduces the correlations but posits definiteness that has independently been ruled out.

Second, and fatally, one pair of coins cannot answer questions about a different axis. Set the left analyzer to $z$ and the right to $x$ and the data come out uncorrelated; set both to $37°$ and they come out perfectly anticorrelated. To reproduce that, each envelope must contain not one coin but an answer for every axis anyone might ask about — which is no longer a coin analogy, it is the hidden-variable hypothesis. So the analogy does not compete with quantum mechanics; it is the theory Bell will test, in disguise.

What a local hidden variable theory must supply

Let us state the hypothesis with no wiggle room, because the whole force of Bell's argument is that no wiggle room remains [Fre, §2.3.4].

A local hidden variable theory says each atom leaves the source carrying an instruction set: a function from analyzer setting to outcome, fixed at creation. Three words carry the weight.

• Local: the instructions are fixed at the source and cannot be altered afterwards by anything happening at the distant wing. No influence propagates faster than light.
• Hidden: we cannot read the instructions. They may be drawn from any probability distribution, and the distribution may be as baroque as you like.
• Realistic: the instructions cover every setting, whether or not it is chosen. This is not an extra assumption but a consequence of the first two: since the analyzer can be rotated after the pair is created — Wheeler's delayed choice again — an instruction set that only covered the actual setting would need to be updated non-locally.

The instruction set given to the right atom must be the complement of the left's, so that a shared setting always yields opposite results. That single requirement is what makes the theory testable, because it means one instruction set determines both wings.

Three warm-up cases show the hypothesis is not a straw man; it handles them effortlessly.

Bell's insight was that these three cases — $0°$, $180°$, $90°$ — are precisely the ones a hidden-variable theory can absorb, and that they are therefore the wrong places to look.

The three-setting Bell experiment

Here is the experiment that decides it [Fre, §2.3; Bell64]. Each analyzer can be set to one of three orientations, coplanar and equally spaced:

chosen independently and uniformly at random on each side, on every shot. Package each analyzer into a box with two indicator lights, $+$ and $-$; the setting is not recorded. One light flashes on each side per shot, and the entire experiment consists of one question: how often do the two boxes flash opposite?

flowchart LR
    LB["left Bell analyzer<br/>random A / B / C<br/>lights + and -"] --- SRC["singlet source"]
    SRC --- RB["right Bell analyzer<br/>random A / B / C<br/>lights + and -"]
    LB --> Q{"how often<br/>do they flash<br/>opposite?"}
    RB --> Q
    Q --> QM["quantum: 1/2"]
    Q --> HV["local realism: at least 5/9"]

The quantum prediction. Only the relative angle matters. Of the nine equally likely setting pairs, three are aligned ($\theta = 0$) and six are misaligned by $\pm120°$. Using $P(\text{opposite}) = \cos^2(\theta/2)$ with $\cos^2 0° = 1$ and $\cos^2 60° = \tfrac14$:

Exactly one half. (Freericks gets there by fixing the left result and averaging over the right analyzer's three stops; the arithmetic is the same, $\tfrac13(1 + \tfrac14 + \tfrac14) = \tfrac12$.)

The local-realist prediction. Now the counting argument, which uses no quantum mechanics at all. The left atom carries a triple of instructions $(L_A, L_B, L_C)$, each $\pm$; there are $2^3 = 8$ of them. The right atom carries the complement, $R_X = \overline{L_X}$.

On a shot where the left analyzer is at setting $i$ and the right at setting $j$, the left light shows $L_i$ and the right light shows $\overline{L_j}$. The lights are opposite exactly when $L_i \ne \overline{L_j}$, that is, when

So for a given instruction set, the fraction of the nine setting pairs that flash opposite is just the fraction of pairs $(i,j)$ whose instructions agree. Count:

Every instruction set gives at least $\tfrac59$. And since the source's actual output is some probability distribution over these eight sets — we are allowed to know nothing about it — the observed frequency is a weighted average of numbers each of which is $\ge \tfrac59$. Therefore

This is a Bell inequality: a bound on the statistics of any local hidden variable theory, derived by counting, with no free parameters and no assumption about the distribution over instruction sets.

The verdict. $\tfrac12 < \tfrac59$. Quantum mechanics predicts a value the hypothesis forbids, and the gap is $0.0556$ — small, but a probability gap of that size is settled by a few thousand shots (exercise E4). Experiments say $\tfrac12$.

Notice how little went into the argument. No wavefunctions, no operators, no commutators — just the observation that a triple of $\pm$ symbols cannot have fewer than five of its nine self-comparisons agree. Mermin's 1981 exposition made exactly this point: the machinery of quantum mechanics is not needed to see that something is wrong with the classical picture, only the ability to count to nine.

The four-setting variant, and why the design matters

Freericks closes the section with a variant that looks like an obvious improvement and is not [Fre, §§2.3.7–2.3.8]. Use four settings at $90°$ intervals: $+z\,(0°)$, $+x\,(90°)$, $-z\,(180°)$, $-x\,(270°)$, again chosen independently and uniformly.

Quantum. Of the sixteen setting pairs, four are aligned, eight differ by $90°$, and four differ by $180°$:

Local realism. Instruction sets are now quadruples, $2^4 = 16$ of them, and opposite flashes again correspond to agreeing pairs $(i,j)$:

The minimum is now exactly $\tfrac12$ — the quantum value. A source that emitted only balanced instruction sets, two pluses and two minuses, would reproduce the quantum statistics of this experiment perfectly.

So the four-setting experiment cannot distinguish the theories. This is not a defect of local realism; it is a defect of the experiment, and the lesson is important enough to state in bold: a Bell test is a design problem, and most designs fail. The three equally spaced settings work because $120°$ puts $\cos^2 60° = \tfrac14$ where a counting argument needs $\tfrac{1}{3}$-ish; the four perpendicular settings fail because $90°$ and $180°$ are exactly the angles a hidden-variable theory already handles (see the warm-up table). Nothing here rehabilitates local realism — the three-setting experiment has been done, repeatedly, and it comes out quantum. It only shows that "we measured entangled particles and saw correlations" is not by itself evidence of anything.

What a Bell experiment needs

Gathering the requirements [Fre, §2.3.5], a test of local realism against quantum mechanics must:

1. Create entangled pairs. Product states have local descriptions by construction.
2. Use settings that differ, at least some of the time. With aligned analyzers the coin story is exact.
3. Use settings away from $0°$, $90°$, and $180°$, at least some of the time. Those three are the angles a hidden-variable theory absorbs.
4. Predict different numbers. The whole point is a gap between the two predictions that data can resolve.

Two things are not on the list, though both make a real experiment more convincing. Changing the settings while the particles are in flight is not required for the puzzle, only for closing the locality loophole. And the particles need not be atoms — every actual Bell test to date has used photons, or photon-mediated entanglement between distant electron spins, because they are enormously easier to make and separate.

The experimental record

The chain of experiments is worth knowing because it is a case study in taking loopholes seriously. Freedman and Clauser (1972) and Aspect and collaborators (1981–82) saw the violation, with Aspect's group adding fast switching to address locality. Weihs et al. (1998) enforced spacelike separation between the setting choices and the distant detections. Rowe et al. (2001) closed the detection loophole using trapped ions, where essentially every event is registered. In 2015 three groups — Hensen et al. with entangled electron spins in diamond, and Giustina et al. and Shalm et al. with photons — closed all the major loopholes simultaneously. The 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics went to Aspect, Clauser, and Zeilinger for this line of work.

The result, restated as carefully as it deserves: local realism is inconsistent with experiment. At least one of "the outcomes were determined before measurement" and "no influence travels faster than light" is false. Quantum mechanics keeps the second and abandons the first. It is possible to construct theories that do the reverse — Bohmian mechanics is explicitly nonlocal — but nobody gets to keep both.

Closing the loop from R.1.4

R.1.4 ended with an explicit promissory note. The conundrum of projections proved that an atom cannot carry a classical vector whose components the analyzer reads off, and then said, in so many words, that this does not by itself rule out every hidden-variable theory: a contrived enough one, with extra machinery keyed to the apparatus, might survive.

That note is now paid. The instruction-set hypothesis is exactly the general form of the contrivance — arbitrary machinery, arbitrary distribution, an answer prepared for every setting — and the three-setting Bell experiment refutes it by counting. What survived R.1.4 does not survive this.

Two things are worth keeping straight about the scope. The refutation is of local hidden variables; nonlocal ones remain logically available and unattractive. And this lesson has been deliberately experiment-first: the same result stated in operator language, with correlation functions $E(a,b) = -\hat a\cdot\hat b$, the CHSH combination, and the Tsirelson bound $2\sqrt2$, is 1.4.3 Nonlocality & CHSH. The two routes reach the same place; go read that one next if you want the algebra that generalizes.

Hands-on (Python)

import numpy as np
from itertools import product

# ---- Singlet, in any basis ----------------------------------------------
pz, mz = np.array([1, 0], complex), np.array([0, 1], complex)

def n_basis(theta):
    c, s = np.cos(theta / 2), np.sin(theta / 2)
    return c * pz + s * mz, -s * pz + c * mz

def singlet(theta=0.0):
    p, m = n_basis(theta)
    return (np.kron(p, m) - np.kron(m, p)) / np.sqrt(2)

ref = singlet(0.0)
print("singlet is basis independent:",
      all(abs(abs(np.vdot(ref, singlet(t))) - 1) < 1e-12
          for t in np.deg2rad([37, 90, 120, 251])))

# ---- Joint probabilities at settings (a, b) -----------------------------
def joint(a, b):
    """P[(left sign, right sign)] for analyzer angles a, b (radians)."""
    psi, out = singlet(), {}
    for sl, vl in zip((+1, -1), n_basis(a)):
        for sr, vr in zip((+1, -1), n_basis(b)):
            out[(sl, sr)] = abs(np.vdot(np.kron(vl, vr), psi)) ** 2
    return out

def p_opposite(a, b):
    j = joint(a, b)
    return j[(+1, -1)] + j[(-1, +1)]

print("\n theta   P(opposite)   cos^2(theta/2)")
for deg in (0, 60, 90, 120, 180):
    th = np.deg2rad(deg)
    print(f" {deg:4d}     {p_opposite(0.0, th):.4f}       {np.cos(th/2)**2:.4f}")

# ---- No communication: Bob's marginal never moves -----------------------
print("\nBob's P(+) as Alice changes her setting:")
for deg in (0, 45, 90, 137):
    j = joint(np.deg2rad(deg), 0.0)
    print(f"  Alice at {deg:3d} deg -> P(Bob +) = {j[(+1, +1)] + j[(-1, +1)]:.4f}")

# ---- Three-setting Bell test -------------------------------------------
def quantum_opposite(settings):
    s = np.deg2rad(settings)
    return np.mean([[p_opposite(a, b) for b in s] for a in s])

def lhv_opposite(instr):
    """Lights flash opposite iff the left instructions at the two stops agree."""
    n = len(instr)
    return sum(instr[i] == instr[j] for i in range(n) for j in range(n)) / n**2

three = [0, 120, 240]
print(f"\nTHREE stops {three}")
print(f"  quantum          P(opposite) = {quantum_opposite(three):.4f}")
worst = min(lhv_opposite(s) for s in product([+1, -1], repeat=3))
for s in product([+1, -1], repeat=3):
    tag = "".join("+" if x > 0 else "-" for x in s)
    print(f"  instructions {tag}   P(opposite) = {lhv_opposite(s):.4f}")
print(f"  local-realist minimum        = {worst:.4f}  ( = 5/9 )")

# ---- Four-setting variant: the gap closes ------------------------------
four = [0, 90, 180, 270]
print(f"\nFOUR stops {four}")
print(f"  quantum          P(opposite) = {quantum_opposite(four):.4f}")
seen = {}
for s in product([+1, -1], repeat=4):
    seen.setdefault(round(lhv_opposite(s), 4), 0)
    seen[round(lhv_opposite(s), 4)] += 1
for p, count in sorted(seen.items()):
    print(f"  {count:2d} instruction sets give P(opposite) = {p:.4f}")
print("  local-realist minimum        = 0.5000  -> no gap, the test is blind")

The three-setting block prints 0.5000 for quantum against a local-realist minimum of 0.5556; the four-setting block prints 0.5000 for both, which is the whole point of §2.3.8.

Exercises

E1 (easy). Both analyzers are set to $\hat n$ at $37°$ from vertical. What is the probability that they read opposite? Now set the left to $37°$ and the right to $127°$. Answer both from the general formula and say which experimental fact each case illustrates.

E2 (easy). Alice measures her atom along $z$ and gets $+$. Bob, far away, has not yet measured and does not know her result. What are his probabilities along $z$? Along $x$? Now suppose Alice had chosen $x$ instead, unknown to Bob. What changes for him?

E3 (medium). Both analyzers are always perpendicular to each other — one along $+z$ and the other along $+x$, with which is which varying randomly from run to run. Write the left atom's instructions as a pair, first symbol for the $z$ setting and second for the $x$ setting; the right atom gets the complement. Which of these distributions reproduces the quantum statistics? (1) the four sets $+\!+$, $+\!-$, $-\!+$, $-\!-$, each a quarter of the time; (2) $+\!+$ and $-\!-$, each half the time; (3) $+\!-$ and $-\!+$, each half the time; (4) $+\!+$ always. Explain what goes wrong with the others.

E4 (medium). The three-setting Bell test predicts $\tfrac12$ (quantum) versus $\ge\tfrac59$ (local realism). (a) How many pairs must you measure to distinguish the two at $3\sigma$? (b) A colleague suggests improving the sensitivity by using settings $0°$, $90°$, $180°$ instead, since those are easier to align. Evaluate both predictions for that choice and comment.

E5 (hard). Work the four-setting variant of §§2.3.7–2.3.8 completely, with stops at $+z$, $+x$, $-z$, $-x$. (a) Confirm the quantum prediction $P(\text{opposite}) = \tfrac12$. (b) For left instruction sets $+\!+\!+\!+$, $+\!+\!+\!-$, and $+\!+\!-\!-$, count how many of the 16 setting pairs give opposite flashes. (c) Show that the local-realist minimum is $\tfrac12$ and identify which instruction sets attain it. (d) Explain why this does not rescue local realism, and state the general principle about $M$ equally spaced settings that the two experiments illustrate.

Checkpoint

1. Write the singlet state and prove it takes the same form in a rotated basis. What two experimental facts follow immediately?
2. State the EPR argument in three steps, naming its two premises. Which one does quantum mechanics abandon?
3. Prove that Bob's statistics are unaffected by Alice's choice of measurement. Why does this make the frame-dependence of "which happened first" harmless?
4. Where exactly does the coin analogy fail, and what does repairing it turn it into?
5. Give the quantum and local-realist predictions for the three-setting Bell experiment, and explain in one sentence why the four-setting version cannot decide anything.

Further Reading

• [Fre] J. K. Freericks, Quantum Mechanics Done Right, §2.3 — the Bohm variant, the Bell analyzer, the instruction-set tables, and the four-stop problems this lesson follows.
• [EPR35] Einstein, Podolsky & Rosen, Phys. Rev. 47, 777 (1935) — the original argument, four pages and worth reading in full.
• [Bell64] J. S. Bell, "On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox", Physics 1, 195 (1964) — the theorem.
• [CHSH69] Clauser, Horne, Shimony & Holt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 880 (1969) — the experimentally practical form, developed formally in Term 1.4.3.
• [Mer] Mermin, Quantum Computer Science, §1.5 — entangled two-qubit states; see also his "Bringing home the atomic world", Am. J. Phys. 49, 940 (1981), the source of the three-setting counting argument.
• [Sak] Sakurai & Napolitano, §3.10 — the singlet, its rotational invariance, and Bell's inequality in operator language.
• [Aar] Aaronson, Quantum Computing Since Democritus, Ch. 18 — Bell inequalities read as a game, with the no-signalling constraint made central.
• B. Hensen et al., Nature 526, 682 (2015); M. Giustina et al. and L. Shalm et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 250401 & 250402 (2015) — the loophole-free tests.
• The Conundrum of Projections — the open question this lesson closes.
• 1.4.2 Bell States and 1.4.3 Nonlocality & CHSH — the same physics in operator form, with the Tsirelson bound.

← Prev: Complementarity & Delayed Choice · Up: Resources · Next: Nuclear Magnetic Resonance & Imaging →