by gill1109 » Sun Mar 22, 2020 1:43 am
Maybe somebody can help me make out what this paper is actually saying. The author sent it to me asking for comments but all I could say was that he may be needed to recruit a native speaker of English as a future collaborator. But maybe I'm just thick. Hm... maybe that explains everything.
Richard
https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.07507 Incompleteness in the Bell Theorem Using Non-contextual Local Realistic Model
Koji Nagata, Tadao Nakamura & Han Geurdes
International Journal of Theoretical Physics
ISSN 0020-7748 Volume 59 Number 2
Int J Theor Phys (2020) 59:313-320 DOI 10.1007/s10773-019-04312-3
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10773-019-04312-3 Here, we consider the Bell experiment for a system described by multipartite states in the case where n-dichotomic observables are measured per site. If n is two, we consider a two-setting Bell experiment. If n is three, we consider a three-setting Bell experiment. Two-setting model is an explicit local realistic model for the values of a correlation function, given in a two-setting Bell experiment. Three-setting model is an explicit local realistic model for the values of a correlation function, given in a three-setting Bell experiment. In the non-contextual scenario, there is not the difference between three-setting model and two-setting model. And we cannot classify local realistic theories in this case. This says that we can construct three-setting model from two-setting model. Surprisingly we can discuss incompleteness in the Bell theorem using non-contextual model. On the other hand, in the contextual scenario, there is the difference between three-setting model and two-setting model. This says that we must distinguish three-setting model from two-setting model. And we can classify local realistic theories in this case.
Maybe somebody can help me make out what this paper is actually saying. The author sent it to me asking for comments but all I could say was that he may be needed to recruit a native speaker of English as a future collaborator. But maybe I'm just thick. Hm... maybe that explains everything.
Richard
[url]https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.07507[/url]
Incompleteness in the Bell Theorem Using Non-contextual Local Realistic Model
Koji Nagata, Tadao Nakamura & Han Geurdes
International Journal of Theoretical Physics
ISSN 0020-7748 Volume 59 Number 2
Int J Theor Phys (2020) 59:313-320 DOI 10.1007/s10773-019-04312-3
[url]https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10773-019-04312-3[/url]
[quote]Here, we consider the Bell experiment for a system described by multipartite states in the case where n-dichotomic observables are measured per site. If n is two, we consider a two-setting Bell experiment. If n is three, we consider a three-setting Bell experiment. Two-setting model is an explicit local realistic model for the values of a correlation function, given in a two-setting Bell experiment. Three-setting model is an explicit local realistic model for the values of a correlation function, given in a three-setting Bell experiment. In the non-contextual scenario, there is not the difference between three-setting model and two-setting model. And we cannot classify local realistic theories in this case. This says that we can construct three-setting model from two-setting model. Surprisingly we can discuss incompleteness in the Bell theorem using non-contextual model. On the other hand, in the contextual scenario, there is the difference between three-setting model and two-setting model. This says that we must distinguish three-setting model from two-setting model. And we can classify local realistic theories in this case.[/quote]
