Bell's Inequality violated

[5614]

Can anyone comment on this article:

 

http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/7/11/3

 

in which Messons seemed to have violated Bell's inequality.

 

The article says:

"The inequality was violated by three standard deviations in experiments with B mesons at the KEK laboratory in Japan"

[5614]

From KEK's website if you go to their annual report:

http://ccdb3fs.kek.jp/tiff/2003/0322/0322001.pdf

on page 26 of 250 it says:

 

Among many interesting results, the most striking one was the measurement of time-dependent CP violation in penguin decays of B

mesons, such as B → φKS. In the Standard Model of elementary particles, the size of CP violation in these decays is predicted to be identical to that for B →

J/ψKS, whose CP violation has been precisely measured as 0.73 by Belle. The value announced in FNAL was –0.96 (Fig. 4-1-1). This shows an inconsistency of 3.4σ, and indicates that some unknown physics contributes in the penguin decay process. Theoretically, it has been predicted that new hypothetical particles such as super symmetric theory (SUSY) particles may change the size of CP violation in penguin decays from the prediction of the Standard Model, if they exist with a certain mass and coupling strength, and precise

measurements of these have been awaited.

 

and

 

Another important achievement announced in FY2003 was the new result on CP violation in B → π+π− decay. This measurement is far more difficult compared with the similar measurement in B → J/ψKS decay, because the branching fraction for B → π+π− is much smaller, and the confusing decay mode, B → Κ+π−, creates a background. This measurement was pursued carefully, because a direct CP violation, another type of CP violation also predicted by the Kobayashi-Maskawa model, was expected to appear in

this decay mode. The results based on 140 fb−1 were Sππ = −1.00 ± 0.17 and Aππ = +0.58 ± 0.21 (Fig. 4-1-2), 21 Institute of Particle and Nuclear Studies (IPNS)

4.1 Belle Experiment

Fig. 4-1-1 Δt distribution of CP asymmetry for B → φKS.

The dashed curve shows the Standard Model

expectation.

Fig. 4-1-2 Δt distributions of the decay rates and asymmetries

for B → π+π−.

where Sππ and Aππ are the magnitudes of indirect and

direct CP violations, respectively. This was the first

observation of CP violation in B → π+π− decay, and

strongly indicates that the CP asymmetry was violated

directly as predicted by the theory. However these

results are still slightly controversial, because they do

not perfectly satisfy the physical condition. The results

obtained for Sππ and Aππ gave a constraint for φ2, one of

the fundamental parameters in the Kobayashi-Maskawa

model, of 90˚ < φ2 < 146˚.

 

Long yeah (and I don't understand it all), but it seems to be the official report that the news article (first post) was referring to.

[swansont]

I don't think so. The B meson CP violation is not the same thing as an EPR experiment.

[Locrian]

I think in my initial post I misunderstood your intention in your OP.

 

A better reposnse would be to thank you for adding another experiment to the list of ones that have all come to this same conclusion, just in different ways.

[Locrian]

From the Aspect paper I linked to you:

 

The results are in good agreement with quantum mechanical predictions but violate the Bell Inequality by five standard deviations.

[5614]

So what are you two saying?

 

That it agrees with QM (which includes the Bell Inequality?) and that 5 standard deviations can be ignored?

 

And I'll take your word that the B meson CP violation is not the same thing as an EPR experiment but so what? Isn't this about whether the Bell Inequality is correct or not, or is it a case of it only being correct in certain circumstances (e.g. EPR paradox).

[Locrian]

That it agrees with QM (which includes the Bell Inequality?)

 

AHA! My original, pre-edit response was correct! You did not read the papers!!

 

EVERY EXPERIMENT EVER PERFORMED HAS VIOLATED THE BELL INEQUALITY. You need to read those links I posted.

 

Especially Bell and Aspect's papers.

[swansont]

So what are you two saying?

 

That it agrees with QM (which includes the Bell Inequality?) and that 5 standard deviations can be ignored?

 

And I'll take your word that the B meson CP violation is not the same thing as an EPR experiment but so what? Isn't this about whether the Bell Inequality is correct or not' date=' or is it a case of it only being correct in certain circumstances (e.g. EPR paradox).[/quote']

 

 

Perhaps I missed the source of your concern. Bell's inequality says that for "no local hidden variables" the term must be some number, while if that is not true, it must be smaller than some other number: "Put simply, the local theories predict that S will always be less than two, whereas the quantum prediction is S = 2[math]\sqrt[/math]2. When S is greater than two, Bell’s inequality is said to be violated." and the experiment confirmed the "no local hidden variables" version to be true. The fact that it's five standard deviations means that there is a high confidence that it's valid - the value 2 is excluded by 5 standard deviations.

[5614]

You are correct Locrian I haven't read the papers, trust me I want to but haven't had the time.

 

So we need to get more basic because I don't fully understand yet, not good!

 

So did Bell basically say that if his Inequality was correct (not violated) then there would be hidden variables... but his Inequality is always violated so there are not hidden variables.

 

Local theories (hidden variable theory??? The Bell Inequality???) say that S will be less than 2, which disagees with QM which says that S = 2 [math]\sqrt[/math]2 (which is obviously bigger than 2)

 

So far all experimental proof says that S is bigger than 2 (does it say it equals 2 [math]\sqrt[/math]2 ??)

 

Basically local/hidden/Inequality all say one thing and then QM says another, QM is correct, so therefore hidden/Inequality is wrong, but to prove that hidden varibale theory was wrong Bell said "if hidden were true then this inequality would be true" as the inequality is not true we assume that the hidden variable theory is not true either.

 

Am I getting there?!? (hope so!)

[Locrian]

Am I getting there?!? (hope so!)

 

Yes! I think that someone more versed than I would have a lot to argue with some of the word choice that is going on here, but as far as I can tell you are interested in the ideas, not the formalism, so it makes little difference.

[5614]

Yay! Yes this is just me beginning with the basic ideas.

 

QM says that S = 2[math]\sqrt[/math]2

 

So referring back to the original post which had a quote saying that the Inequality was violated by 3 (someone elsewhere said 5) standard deviations.

 

So how does this precise number of standard deviations related to S = 2[math]\sqrt[/math]2 ?

 

Or answer this... does all experimental data (so far) show that S = 2[math]\sqrt[/math]2 ?

[swansont]

Yay! Yes this is just me beginning with the basic ideas.

 

QM says that S = 2[math]\sqrt[/math]2

 

So referring back to the original post which had a quote saying that the Inequality was violated by 3 (someone elsewhere said 5) standard deviations.

 

So how does this precise number of standard deviations related to S = 2[math]\sqrt[/math]2 ?

 

Or answer this... does all experimental data (so far) show that S = 2[math]\sqrt[/math]2 ?

 

 

If you go to the abstract of the paper, it says that the value they measured was 2.725 +- 0.167 (statistical error) +- 0.092 (systematic error)

 

So the QM result is within one standard deviation, and the inequality (i.e. 2) is three SD's away.

[5614]

So the S = 2[math]\sqrt[/math]2 is not a precise formula as such?

 

And for data to not violate the Inequality it has be below 2 (as opposed to nearer 2 than 2[math]\sqrt[/math]2 , is that correct?

[swansont]

So the S = 2[math]\sqrt[/math]2 is not a precise formula as such?

 

And for data to not violate the Inequality it has be below 2 (as opposed to nearer 2 than 2[math]\sqrt[/math]2 ' date=' is that correct?[/quote']

 

That's the value quoted in the article and the experimental results were consistent with that. To not violate the inequality, the value must be <2.