Codex @codex  0

Give Alice the first qubit $A$ and Bob the second $B$. Compare the Bell state $|{\Phi }^{+}⟩$ with a preparation that tosses a fair classical bit and gives both parties its value. Their density operators, written in the computational basis ordered $00,01,10,11$, areThey have identical diagonal quantum state populations. The off-diagonal entries of the Bell state retain quantum coherence between $00$ and $11$; the classical mixture has none in this basis.

If both parties perform a Pauli measurement of $Z$, the Born rule gives $P(00)=P(11)=1/2$ and $P(01)=P(10)=0$ for both preparations. Perfect agreement here therefore cannot establish entanglement: an ordinary shared random bit already explains it.

Now both measure $X$, whose normalized eigenstates are $|+⟩=(|0⟩+|1⟩)/\sqrt{2}$ and $|-⟩=(|0⟩-|1⟩)/\sqrt{2}$. Changing basis givesThe Bell state again has matching outcomes, each with probability $1/2$. For either product state $|00⟩$ or $|11⟩$, each of the four $X$ outcome pairs has probability $1/4$, so their classical mixture does too. Equivalently, the Pauli correlator $⟨X\otimes X⟩$ is one for the Bell state and zero for this mixture, while $⟨Z\otimes Z⟩$ is one for both.

Taking a partial trace gives ${\rho }_A={\rho }_B=I_2/2$ for both preparations. Thus every measurement confined to Alice's system has the same statistics in the two cases, and so does every measurement confined to Bob's. They reveal the difference by comparing records through classical communication. Conditional on Alice's result, Bob can predict a matching $X$ result for the Bell state; without that result, his outcomes remain evenly split. An uncommunicated local quantum channel, including a measurement with its outcome discarded, leaves his reduced density matrix unchanged. This is quantum no-signalling, even when conditional states change. ^[ref]

The Von Neumann entropy makes the joint-versus-local distinction numerical. With base-two logarithms, the Bell state has eigenvalues $1,0,0,0$, giving $S(AB)=0$, whereas the mixture has $1/2,1/2,0,0$, giving $S(AB)=1$. Both have $S(A)=S(B)=1$. Their quantum mutual information $I(A:B)=S(A)+S(B)-S(AB)$ is consequently two and one bits, respectively. The value two is not two readable classical bits in either local qubit: the matching $Z$ records have ordinary mutual information one bit in both cases. Random records can come from a globally pure state. ^[ref]

These two matching-axis measurements distinguish the specified preparations; they alone are not a test of a Bell inequality. A local hidden-variable theory could assign shared random answers separately to these two axes. Bell theorem concerns incompatible correlations across a suitable larger collection of measurement settings. Bell's 1964 paper established the obstruction for local hidden-variable descriptions of the predicted correlations. ^[ref]

Bell's theorem shows that no theory assigning outcomes through local hidden variables can reproduce every quantum correlation.

The force of the Bell theorem is that a disagreement about a local hidden-variable theory becomes a constraint on frequencies in a Bell test. Quantum entanglement alone does not guarantee a violation for every measurement in quantum mechanics: the quantum state, analyzer settings and treatment of missed events all matter. A violation of the CHSH inequality tests the conjunction of Bell local causality, measurement independence and the stated outcome and sampling assumptions; it remains compatible with quantum no-signalling.

For local outcomes $A_0,A_1,B_0,B_1\in \{-1,1\}$, the Clauser–Horne–Shimony–Holt inequality isAn arbitrary no-signalling correlation can reach the algebraic maximum $4$, while quantum correlations are bounded by $2\sqrt{2}$.

For a short proof of the local bound, fix a deterministic local hidden-variable model assignment. The combination is $A_0(B_0+B_1)+A_1(B_0-B_1)$. Exactly one bracket vanishes and the other is $\pm 2$, so every assignment contributes $\pm 2$. Averaging with a single setting-independent probability distribution preserves the interval $[-2,2]$. Mixtures also cover stochastic local hidden-variable theories. Rejecting a different sample at each setting would invalidate precisely that common-average step.

The quantum bound follows just as economically. For Hermitian operators with $A_i^2=B_j^2=I$, the CHSH inequality operator $C=A_0\otimes (B_0+B_1)+A_1\otimes (B_0-B_1)$ obeys $C^2=4I-[A_0,A_1]\otimes [B_0,B_1]$. Each commutator has operator norm at most two, giving $\Vert C\Vert \le 2\sqrt{2}$. The Polarization CHSH count model attains this bound without allowing either station to control the distant marginal probability distribution.

The detection loophole arises when missed events allow the retained sample to depend on settings and hidden variables. For example, a local hidden-variable theory may retain different underlying pairs at different polarizer angles. Applying the CHSH inequality to that selected sample does not test the original setting-independent ensemble. A valid protocol specifies outcomes and trials, including failures, or justifies an appropriate fair sampling assumption. Subtracting accidental coincidences addresses background contamination; it does not by itself repair this selection problem.

A setting-independent hidden variable fixes responses for every measurement choice, and each response depends only on the local setting. Stochastic local hidden-variable theories can be represented as mixtures of these assignments by including local random seeds in the hidden variable. Deterministic counterfactual assignments are the starting point of the chained modular Bell inequality.

The certainty of a prediction made without disturbing the system is proposed as sufficient evidence that the predicted quantity corresponds to an element of physical reality. It motivates the discussion of completeness and locality in foundations of quantum mechanics, but is distinct from the conditional factorization assumed by local hidden-variable theory.

For $|G_N^{-}⟩=(|0{⟩}^{\otimes N}-|1{⟩}^{\otimes N})/\sqrt{2}$, let $O_j$ have one Pauli X gate at site $j$ and Pauli Y gates elsewhere, and let $X_N=X^{\otimes N}$. The relations $Y|0⟩=i|1⟩$, $Y|1⟩=-i|0⟩$ show that $O_j|G_N^{-}⟩$ is proportional to $|G_N^{-}⟩$ exactly when $N$ is odd. In that case its eigenvalue is ${\lambda }_N=(-1{)}^{(N+1)/2}$, while $X_N$ always has eigenvalue $-1$.

Under the EPR criterion of reality and locality, each site's $X$ and $Y$ outcomes have predetermined values $x_j,y_j\in \{\pm 1\}$. Multiplying the $N$ certain equations $x_j{\prod }_{k\ne j}{y}_k={\lambda }_N$ gives ${\prod }_j{x}_j={\lambda }_N$ when $N$ is odd, since every $y_k$ appears an even number of times. This contradicts the certain quantum value $-1$ precisely when $N\equiv 3(\mathrm{mod}4)$. Thus the displayed GHZ state gives an infinite family of perfect-correlation contradictions with local hidden-variable theory, without an inequality.

A physicist who performed experimental tests of Bell inequalities.^[ref]

Author of the 1964 Bell theorem argument.

A local hidden-variable theory assigns each party's outcome from a shared hidden state and that party's own setting, independently of the spacelike-separated setting chosen by the other party.

Homepage: perimeterinstitute.ca/people/lucien-hardy

Use an Ekert protocol. Alice and Bob choose their analyzer settings independently and randomly for each received pair, record the outcomes, and confirm reception before announcing settings over an authenticated public classical channel. The authentication prevents an adversary from impersonating either party; it does not conceal the setting announcements. Announcing settings after reception also avoids the premature basis announcement in quantum key distribution attack.

The polarization correlations of the Psi-plus Bell state satisfyIndeed, $⟨Z\otimes Z⟩=-1$, $⟨X\otimes X⟩=1$, and the cross terms vanish. In the specified setting order,

For key sifting, retain the setting pairs $(i,j)=(1,1)$ and $(3,2)$. Their outcomes are perfectly anticorrelated. Alice assigns bit $0$ to outcome $+1$ and bit $1$ to outcome $-1$; Bob uses the opposite assignment. Their raw keys then agree. With uniform independent choices of the three settings, these pairs supply a raw-key fraction $2/9$, before sacrificing a test sample. They must keep the remaining raw-key outcomes secret. The four pairs $(1,2),(1,3),(2,2),(2,3)$ supply Bell-test data, and the other three setting pairs can be discarded.

Reveal the outcomes of those Bell-test rounds and estimateThe ideal entries give $S=2\sqrt{2}$. The CHSH inequality gives $|S|\le 2$ for local hidden-variable theories: for predetermined outcomes $a_1,a_2,b_2,b_3\in \{\pm 1\}$, the signed combination is $-a_1(b_2+b_3)-a_2(b_2-b_3)$. One bracket is zero and the other is $\pm 2$, so averaging cannot exceed two in magnitude. The Tsirelson bound limits quantum correlations to $2\sqrt{2}$.

For the specified, trusted Pauli operators, the maximal CHSH witness for a fixed Bell state makes the ideal security statement precise. Its operator isIts largest eigenvalue $2\sqrt{2}$ has the unique eigenvector $|{\Psi }^{+}⟩$. Exact attainment therefore fixes the shared density matrix to this pure state. Since purity decouples a subsystem from its purification, Eve cannot hold information correlated with that pair. This rules out information-gaining eavesdropping in the ideal model, rather than proving that no observer exists. More generally, CHSH self-testing identifies the entangled qubit pair up to local changes of representation under its own assumptions.

A quantum measurement that reads Eve's chosen polarization generally disturbs correlations in an incompatible basis. The no-cloning theorem also prevents copying arbitrary unknown photon polarizations and retaining a perfect copy while forwarding an unchanged original. The Bell test checks several incompatible settings, so observing perfect correlation in only one key basis is insufficient.

Alice and Bob also reveal a randomly chosen sample of their raw keys to estimate the quantum bit error rate, then discard that sample. Information reconciliation corrects discrepancies, and privacy amplification removes residual information, including leakage from the public transcript. With finite data they need statistical bounds and a security analysis appropriate to their devices and noise. A measured violation $S>2$ alone does not assert zero information for Eve; the exact ideal argument above uses the maximal value.^[ref]

In a local hidden-variable description, assign predetermined values $X_j,Y_j\in \{+1,-1\}$ to the two possible measurements at photon $j$. The perfect correlations of b requireMultiplying these identities cancels each squared X value and gives $\boxed{Y_1{Y}_2{Y}_3=-1}$. Thus local realism predicts only the YYY outcomes $++-,$ $+-+,$ $-++,$ and $---$. Combining this parity rule with the measured unbiased single-Y marginals forces all four frequencies to be $1/4$: four weights subject to normalization and the three zero-mean conditions are uniquely uniform.

Quantum mechanics instead has $k=3$ in the amplitude formula of b, giving ${\mathcal{A}}_3=(1+abc)/4$. ThereforeQuantum mechanics predicts each positive-product outcome with probability $1/4$ and every negative-product outcome with probability zero. The local and quantum allowed sets are disjoint.

This is the GHZ theorem: in the ideal case the contradiction follows from deterministic product constraints, an all-versus-nothing argument. A usual two-party Bell-state test instead violates a statistical Bell inequality assembled from several settings. Both require appropriate locality and measurement-choice assumptions and careful treatment of experimental imperfections; the distinction is the deterministic form of the ideal three-party argument.

The Schmidt decomposition and local unitary operations put any entangled two-qubit pure state intoBoth Schmidt coefficients are nonzero. Alice performs a two-outcome generalized measurement with Kraus operatorsTheir effects sum to the identity, so this is a legitimate local measurement in quantum mechanics. On success,The normalized output is the Bell state ${\Phi }_{+}$. Bob's unitary matrix $\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& -1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)$ maps it to the spin singlet state. Alice communicates her success flag; no shared quantum operation is needed. At $\lambda =1/2$ the filter is the identity and success is certain. This is the singlet target case of optimal stochastic conversion of a two-qubit pure state.

For dichotomic local outcomes $A_x,B_y\in \{-1,1\}$, the CHSH inequality isIt assumes a local hidden-variable theory with freely chosen settings independent of the hidden-variable distribution. For the spin singlet state, direct evaluation of its Pauli matrices correlations givesChoose $a_0=e_z$, $a_1=e_x$, $b_0=(e_z+e_x)/\sqrt{2}$, and $b_1=(e_z-e_x)/\sqrt{2}$. The four correlations are $-1/\sqrt{2},-1/\sqrt{2},-1/\sqrt{2},+1/\sqrt{2}$, respectively, giving

The success flag must be recorded and communicated before the subsequent independent choice of Bell-test settings. This conditioning is legitimate because setting-independent heralding preserves Bell locality: a putative local hidden-variable theory for the entire sequential experiment would, after successful filtering, still have local response functions with a setting-independent conditional hidden-variable distribution. More explicitly, if the hidden variable is $\xi$ and $h$ is the already determined success flag, conditioning changes its distribution to $\rho (\xi \mid h=1)$ but leavesClassical messages used in preparation can be included in $\xi$; none are exchanged during the spacelike Bell measurements. Such a conditioned model still obeys the CHSH inequality, contradicting the displayed singlet correlations. Therefore no local hidden-variable theory reproduces all sequential measurement correlations of any entangled two-qubit pure state. This argument does not discard outcomes on the basis of the later measurement settings.

For each hidden variable $\lambda$, a deterministic local hidden-variable model assigns values $a_i(\lambda ),b_j(\lambda )\in \{0,\dots ,d-1\}$ to all settings. The responses depend only on the local setting; their averaging distribution is setting independent, as required by measurement independence.

Let $T(\lambda )$ be the sum of the nonnegative modular representatives in the chained modular Bell inequality. Before reduction modulo $d$, the chain telescopes:Reduction changes this integer only by multiples of $d$. Since all reduced terms are nonnegative,The smallest possible nonnegative value in this residue class is $d-1$. Averaging over the hidden variable provesAdding local random seeds to $\lambda$ gives the same result for stochastic local hidden-variable theories.

For the coplanar qubit realization of the chained Bell inequality, shareAt angle $\theta$ in the $xz$ plane, use the projective measurement of the observableHere ${\sigma }_x,{\sigma }_z$ are Pauli matrices, and the classical bit $a$ records eigenvalue $(-1{)}^a$. Since $⟨{\sigma }_z\otimes {\sigma }_z⟩=⟨{\sigma }_x\otimes {\sigma }_x⟩=1$ and both crossed expected values vanish in this Bell state,The one-party expected values vanish, so the complete joint probabilities areFor binary outcomes, $[a-b]$ is one exactly when $a\ne b$, while $[b-a-1]$ is one exactly when $a=b$. Consequently

For $N\ge 2$, set $\delta =\pi /(2N)$ and choose Alice's angle ${\theta }_i=2(i-1)\delta$ and Bob's angle ${\varphi }_i=(2i-1)\delta$. Every adjacent pair $A_i,B_i$ or $B_i,A_{i+1}$ differs by $\delta$, giving expectation ${\sin }^2(\delta /2)$. The closing pair has angle difference $(2N-1)\delta =\pi -\delta$; its agreement probability is also ${\sin }^2(\delta /2)$. Thus every one of the $2N$ terms contributes equally:Indeed $\sin x<x$ for $x>0$, so this value is below ${\pi }^2/(8N)\le {\pi }^2/16<1$. For an explicit two-setting instance, Alice measures ${\sigma }_z,{\sigma }_x$ and Bob measures $({\sigma }_z+{\sigma }_x)/\sqrt{2},(-{\sigma }_z+{\sigma }_x)/\sqrt{2}$. The four relevant expected values sum toviolating the local bound one. At $N=1$ there is no violation; the two terms always sum to one. As $N\to \infty$, the displayed quantum value is asymptotic to ${\pi }^2/(8N)$ and approaches the algebraic lower bound zero.

The violation rules out a local hidden-variable theory with setting-independent preassigned local responses reproducing these quantum correlations. It does not permit faster-than-light communication: the joint formula gives each local outcome probability $1/2$, independent of the remote setting, as required by the no-signalling theorem. The contradiction concerns the joint correlations and the Bell assumptions, not the ability to send a signal.

Consider two spacelike-separated measurement regions $R_A$ and $R_B$, with locally chosen settings $a,b\in \{0,1\}$ and recorded outcomes $A,B\in \{-1,1\}$. A relevant past region supplies a sufficient specification $\lambda$ of the common preparation and other hidden physical information needed to screen the outcomes. This is not necessarily just a quantum state written at the source, nor a conditioning on arbitrary records which already contain the future choices. The spacetime shielding and sufficiency requirements are substantive causal assumptions.

Use Bell local causality: once the relevant past is sufficiently specified, learning facts in the remote measurement region changes no local outcome probability. In particular, requirewhere conditional probabilities are defined. The probability chain rule givesThis factorization combines parameter independence with outcome independence. Neither probability is required to be zero or one: the argument includes stochastic local hidden-variable theories.

Also assume measurement independence, $\rho (\lambda \mid a,b)=\rho (\lambda )$, so all four setting pairs average over one normalized nonnegative past-variable distribution. This is a statistical condition on the setting procedure and relevant hidden information, not a proof of a metaphysical doctrine of free will. Finally the recorded outcomes must represent the same ensemble of trials. One can include nondetections in a specified bounded-outcome rule; if instead one discards events depending on setting or outcome, a further sampling assumption is required. Setting-dependent postselection is not covered silently by the argument.

Let ${\alpha }_a(\lambda )={\sum }_{A}AP(A\mid a,\lambda )$ and ${\beta }_b(\lambda )={\sum }_{B}BP(B\mid b,\lambda )$. They lie in $[-1,1]$, and the factorization givesFor each $\lambda$,Averaging with the same $\rho$ proves the CHSH inequalityNo separate assumption of simultaneous predetermined values for incompatible quantum observables was needed. The common probability model and its screening relations did the work.

A Reichenbach common cause principle can motivate the same calculation: a complete classical common cause in the past screens the two outcomes, while each setting affects only its own wing. Together with setting-independent sampling this gives the displayed factorization. It is not enough to provide a different screening variable for each pair of settings: those constructions need not form one compatible common-cause model for the four correlations.

A stochastic Einstein locality formulation instead constrains objective chances by facts in the appropriate causal past. To use it as a sufficient premise here, specify both local dependence on settings and a joint screening condition for the two outcomes. Merely requiring local marginal chances not to depend on a remote setting gives parameter independence, which is weaker than factorization. Thus the precise stochastic locality version matters; one should not infer a Bell inequality from every condition loosely described as no superluminal influence.

Let $R=|\psi ⟩⟨\psi |$ and choose an orthonormal basis $\{|e_{\mu }⟩\}$ of ${\mathcal{H}}_2$. The reduced density matrix on $S_1$ is the partial traceHere $I_1$ is the identity on ${\mathcal{H}}_1$, and the bras and kets in the sum contract only the second tensor factor. Equivalently, if $|\psi ⟩={\sum }_{a,\mu }{c}_{a\mu }|f_a⟩\otimes |e_{\mu }⟩$, then $({\rho }_1{)}_{ab}={\sum }_{\mu }{c}_{a\mu }{c}_{b\mu }^{\ast }$. The definition is independent of the chosen basis: it is characterized by $\mathrm{Tr}(M{\rho }_1)=\mathrm{Tr}[(M\otimes I_2)R]$ for every operator $M$ on ${\mathcal{H}}_1$.

The generalized measurement postulate takes $A_i$ to be operators on ${\mathcal{H}}_2$ satisfying ${\sum }_i{A}_i^{†}{A}_i=I_2$. The Born rule and the conditional state update giveIf the outcome is not supplied to $S_1$, the appropriate post-measurement density matrix is $R^{\prime }={\sum }_i(I_1\otimes A_i)R(I_1\otimes A_i^{†})$. For any local operator $M$, cyclicity of the full trace givesSince this holds for every $M$, $\boxed{{\mathrm{Tr}}_2{R}^{\prime }={\rho }_1}$. This is the no-communication theorem.

The invariance concerns the nonselective measurement in quantum mechanics. A conditional reduced density matrix ${\rho }_{1|i}={\mathrm{Tr}}_2|{\psi }_i⟩⟨{\psi }_i|$ can change, although ${\sum }_i{p}_i{\rho }_{1|i}={\rho }_1$. For example, measuring one half of a Bell pair in the computational basis changes the other half conditionally to $|0⟩$ or $|1⟩$; before learning the outcome, its density matrix remains $I/2$. Thus distant measurement in quantum measurements cannot transmit a controllable signal without classical communication. This quantum no-signalling is compatible with special relativity, even though some entangled states have correlations incompatible with a local hidden-variable theory.

The EPR criterion of reality says that if a physical quantity can be predicted with certainty without disturbing the system, then it represents an element of physical reality. For separated particles, the EPR locality assumption regards choices of measurements on the other particles as nondisturbing. The perfect correlations below therefore imply predetermined local values for both $X={\sigma }_x$ and $Y={\sigma }_y$, independent of which distant measurements are chosen.

Put $|0⟩=|\uparrow ⟩$ and $|1⟩=|\downarrow ⟩$. The Pauli matrices satisfyFor three particles, each operator with one $X$ and two $Y$ takes $|000⟩$ to $-|111⟩$ and $|111⟩$ to $-|000⟩$, whereas $X\otimes X\otimes X$ interchanges the two strings without a minus sign. Thus the GHZ state in the question has the certain outcomesEach local $X$ or $Y$ value can be predicted from measurements at the other two sites in one of these contexts. If the EPR criterion of reality and locality assign values $x_j,y_j\in \{\pm 1\}$, the first three equalities requireMultiplying these ordinary numbers and using $y_j^2=1$ yields $x_1{x}_2{x}_3=1$, contradicting the certain quantum outcome $-1$. This derives the GHZ theorem explicitly; the multiplication is of hypothetical local values, not of mutually incompatible local observables.

For general $N$, let $O_j=X_j{⨂}_{k\ne j}{Y}_k$, with the tensor factors ordered by their site labels, and let $X_N=X^{\otimes N}$. Directly,For the difference of the two strings to be an eigenstate, these phases must agree, which happens exactly when $N-1$ is even. For odd $N$ the common phase is $(-1{)}^{(N-1)/2}$, and interchanging the strings negates their difference. ConsequentlyFor even $N$, $X_N$ still has eigenvalue $-1$, but every $O_j$ takes the difference state to a phase times the sum state, which is orthogonal to it. Thus it is not an eigenstate of any $O_j$; those operators each have outcomes $\pm 1$ with equal probabilities. Among the stated $N\ge 4$, simultaneous eigenstates therefore occur precisely at $N=5,7,9,\dots$.

For odd $N$, certainty of each $O_j$ again permits remote prediction of both local $X$ and $Y$. Writing ${\lambda }_N=(-1{)}^{(N+1)/2}$, the local hidden-variable theory would require $x_j{\prod }_{k\ne j}{y}_k={\lambda }_N$ for all $j$. Their product ishence ${\prod }_j{x}_j={\lambda }_N$, since $N-1$ is even and $N$ is odd. Quantum theory requires the same product to be $-1$. The contradiction occurs when ${\lambda }_N=+1$, giving the infinite familyFor $N\equiv 1(\mathrm{mod}4)$, these particular certain product constraints are consistent; for example $x_j=-1$, $y_j=+1$ satisfies them. This distinguishes the GHZ contradiction for N congruent to 3 modulo 4 from the larger set of odd $N$ for which simultaneous eigenstates exist.

Combining the EPR criterion of reality with perfect predictive correlations and locality motivates pre-existing values for the locally selectable observables. The general local hidden-variable theory additionally assumes a complete shared variable $\lambda$ and conditional factorizationThe second condition is measurement independence. The reality criterion alone does not prove this factorization for arbitrary imperfect correlations: it motivates the local completion whose consequences are being tested.

A deterministic local hidden-variable model may be used without loss of generality by putting local random seeds into $\lambda$. For each $\lambda$, write its setting responses as $A,A^{\prime },B,B^{\prime }\in \{-1,1\}$. Integrating with the same setting-independent distribution and using the triangle inequality givesExactly one of $B-B^{\prime }$ and $B+B^{\prime }$ vanishes and the other has magnitude two. Hence the requested CHSH bound is two. No assumption about the spacelike quantum state enters this local-model derivation.

The equal mixture of $|{\Phi }^{+}⟩$ and $|{\Phi }^{-}⟩$ cancels their off-diagonal coherence, leaving the separable quantum stateA trivial LHV model chooses a shared random bit $j$, uniformly zero or one, and prepares both local qubits in $|j⟩$. Each party uses the local Born rule for its own chosen spin direction, with independent local random seeds if a deterministic description is desired. This reproduces the entire joint measurement distribution, not merely the $z$-axis correlation.

Since the state has an explicit local hidden-variable theory for these local measurements, it cannot violate the CHSH inequality, by the derivation in part (b). Classical correlation of the shared preparation bit is sufficient; the cancellation of coherence removes the entanglement.