Quick Navigation

Topics

Quantum Foundations

Bell inequalities with retarded settings

arXiv
Authors: Lucien Hardy

Year

2015

Paper ID

27592

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

127

Citations

N/A

Abstract

We consider retarded settings in the context of a Bell-type experiment. The retarded setting is defined as the value the setting would have taken were it not for some external intervention (for example, by a human). We derive retarded Bell inequalities that explicitly take into account the retarded settings. These inequalities are not violated by Quantum Theory (or any other theory) when the retarded settings are equal to the actual settings. We construct a simple model that reproduces Quantum Theory when the retarded and actual settings are equal, but violates it when they are not. We discuss using humans to choose the settings in this type of experiment and the implications of a violation of Quantum Theory (in agreement with the retarded Bell inequalities) in this context.

Why This Paper Matters

  • This paper contributes to the Quantum Foundations research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
  • It adds a 2015 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • We consider retarded settings in the context of a Bell-type experiment.

Paper Tools

Become a member to use research tools

Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.

Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share Cite This Paper Copy URL Compare Copy DOI Add to Reading List Category Correction Request

References & Citation Signals

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

Current Paper #27592 #69036 CARVE-Q: Quantum-Proposed, Clas... #69035 A Modular Approach to Succinct ... #69013 Quantum correlations and cohere... #68989 Quantum correlations in QBism's...

External citation index: OpenAlex citation signal

Community Reactions

Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.

Score: 0
Likes: 0 Dislikes: 0

Sign in to react to this paper.

Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)

Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)

No written reviews yet.