- #1
gespex
- 56
- 0
Hi all,
I'm no expert in quantum mechanics by any means, but I've been quite interested in, and done quite some research on, Bell's theorem and related inequalities such as CH and CHSH. The theories all look perfectly sound, except that they all contain the "no enhancement assumption", some even in the form of an even stronger "fair sampling assumption".
Now it seems quite doable to formulate a theory that contains regular, classical hidden variables that match CH and CHSH in all correlations (ie. coincidence rate between detected photons with polarizes either set at specific angles or removed). Simply by assuming there exist hidden variables that determines the chance the particle is detected, it seems possible to match these coincidence rates that Quantum Mechanics also predicts.
I have two questions regarding this:
1. Do such hidden variable theorems exist, that are completely classical and match the coincidence rates as predicted by QM?
2. Regardless of whether such a theorem exists, why is this "no enhancement assumption" assumed to be true? What are the arguments in favour of it?
Thanks in advance,
Gespex
I'm no expert in quantum mechanics by any means, but I've been quite interested in, and done quite some research on, Bell's theorem and related inequalities such as CH and CHSH. The theories all look perfectly sound, except that they all contain the "no enhancement assumption", some even in the form of an even stronger "fair sampling assumption".
Now it seems quite doable to formulate a theory that contains regular, classical hidden variables that match CH and CHSH in all correlations (ie. coincidence rate between detected photons with polarizes either set at specific angles or removed). Simply by assuming there exist hidden variables that determines the chance the particle is detected, it seems possible to match these coincidence rates that Quantum Mechanics also predicts.
I have two questions regarding this:
1. Do such hidden variable theorems exist, that are completely classical and match the coincidence rates as predicted by QM?
2. Regardless of whether such a theorem exists, why is this "no enhancement assumption" assumed to be true? What are the arguments in favour of it?
Thanks in advance,
Gespex