论文标题
当地加上完美的相关性是否意味着确定性？
Does locality plus perfect correlation imply determinism?
论文作者
论文摘要
约翰·贝尔（John Bell）的1964年论文首次证明了量子力学与局部隐藏变量不相容。关于他是否依靠确定论的假设，还是他后来所声称的，这是一个持续而激烈的争论，而是从当地的假设和完美相关性中得出的确定性。本文旨在通过简单的例子和严格的结果来清楚辩论。结果表明，贝尔（Bell）1964年论文中使用的弱形式（参数独立性）不足以进行这种推导，而即使弱点不存在，称为结果独立性的独立形式也足够。它进一步得出，结果独立性本身意味着标准量子力学是不完整的。还表明，贝尔对爱因斯坦 - 罗森 - 波多尔斯基的论点的吸引力是通过在这一论点中揭示逻辑差距的示例来支持其主张的失败。但是，通过更强大的标准代替基于论证的现实标准，可以根据贝尔1964年的论文所要求的严格推导薄弱的地方和确定性。简要讨论了量子解释，局部性和经典常见原因的后果，并参考了局部古典不确定性的示例。
A 1964 paper by John Bell gave the first demonstration that quantum mechanics is incompatible with local hidden variables. There is an ongoing and vigorous debate on whether he relied on an assumption of determinism, or instead, as he later claimed, derived determinism from assumptions of locality and perfect correlation. This paper aims to bring clarity to the debate via simple examples and rigorous results. It is shown that the weak form of locality used in Bell's 1964 paper (parameter independence) is insufficient for such a derivation, whereas an independent form called outcome independence is sufficient even when weak locality does not hold. It further follows that outcome independence, by itself, implies that standard quantum mechanics is incomplete. It is also shown that an appeal by Bell to the Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky argument to support his claim fails, via examples that expose logical gaps in this argument. However, replacing the reality criterion underpinning the argument by a stronger criterion enables a rigorous derivation of both weak locality and determinism, as required for Bell's 1964 paper. Consequences for quantum interpretations, locality, and classical common causes are briefly discussed, with reference to an example of local classical indeterminism.
