Abstract
Bell’s inequality is derived by resorting to a hidden-variable theory devised for resolving the Einstein-Bohr debate on the conceptual foundations of quantum mechanics. The legitimacy of quantum superposition for describing the physical world is the essence of the debate. Einstein argued against the legitimacy of quantum superposition. Testing Bell’s inequality by experiment with the experimental result explained by Bell’s theorem opened the door to so-called quantum information technologies. In quantum information theory, “quantum bit” (or “qubit” for short) in a form of quantum superposition is supposed to carry quantum information. Although most physicists believe that Einstein’s vision of the physical world contradicts the experimental result of testing Bell’s inequality, actually neither the experimental result nor Bell’s theorem is relevant to Einstein’s viewpoint. In the present paper, a new principle, the general principle of measurements, is proved as a mathematical theorem. Based on this principle, the experiment for testing Bell’s inequality and so-called experimental evidence for physically realizable “qubit” are scrutinized. The findings are as follows. The experimental result of testing Bell’s inequality and the measurement outcomes of experiments involving “qubit” are all erroneously explained. Bell’s inequality failed to capture the essence of the Einstein-Bohr debate, and Bell’s theorem is irrelevant to Einstein’s vision of the physical world. Quantum mechanics can be completed by using disjunction (“or”) as the logical relation between the orthonormal vectors that span an arbitrarily given Hilbert space without resorting to any hidden-variable theory, while the mathematical setting will remain essentially unchanged. All kinds of “qubit” violate the general principle of measurements and can only describe imaginary objects that do not exist in the physical world. The findings inevitably lead to a very regrettable conclusion: Quantum information has no physical carers and all quantum information technologies are not physically realizable.
Reference24 articles.
1. A. Einstein, B. Podolsky and N. Rosen, Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered completed? Physical Review, 47(1935), 777–80, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRev.47.777.
2. N. Bohr, Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Physical Review, 48(1935), 696–702, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRev.48.696.
3. N. Bohr, Discussion with Einstein on epistemological problems in atomic physics, in Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, 1949, ed. P. A. Schilpp, The Library of Living Philosophers, Evanston, Illinois.
4. The Born-Einstein Letters, Translated by Irene Born, MACMILLAN, 1971, p.149.
5. J. S. Bell, On Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox, Physics, 1(1964), 195-200, DOI: 10.1103/PhysicsPhysiqueFizika.1.195.