Foundations of Physics, Vol. 36, No.

4, April 2006 (© 2006)

DOI: 10.1007/s10701-005-9038-4

Separability of Quantum States vs. Original Bell

(1964) Inequalities

Marek Żukowski1
Received June 28, 2005 / Published online February 15, 2006

All separable states satisfy all Bell-type inequalities, which involve as their
assumption only existence of local realistic (local hidden variable) models of
the correlations of spatially separated systems, observed by two or more observ-
ers making independent decisions on what to measure (free will). The recent
observation by Loubenets, that some separable states do not satisfy the origi-
nal Bell inequality (1964) has no consequences whatsoever for the studies of
the relation of separability with local realism. The original Bell inequality was
derived using an additional assumption that the local results for a certain pair
of local settings reveal perfect Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (EPR) correlations.
Therefore violation of this inequality by some quantum predictions implies that
either (i) the predictions do not allow a local realistic model, or (ii) the pre-
dictions do not have the required EPR correlations, or finally both (i) and (ii).

KEY WORDS: Bell theorem; local realism; separable states.

1. INTRODUCTION

All separable states satisfy all Bell-type inequalities.

• Bell-type inequalities are necessary conditions for local and real-
istic description for measurement results for a given set of spa-
tially distributed physical subsystems. They are constraints on the
values of averages (or probabilities) of variables of two or more
separated local realistic systems. Interesting Bell inequalities involve
correlation functions for the systems. E.g., for two subsystems Bell
inequalities have the following general form

1 Instytut Fizyki Teoretycznej i Astrofizyki, Uniwesytet Gdański, 80-952 Gdańsk, Poland;

e-mail: marek.zukowski@univie.ac.at

541
0015-9018/06/0400-0541/0 © 2006 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.
542 Żukowski

n

m
c(i, j )E(i, j )
B(c), (1)
i=1 j =1

where c(i, j ) are certain constant coefficients, i and j are indices

(discrete of continuous) distinguishing various variables that can be
measured upon the system 1 and 2, respectively, E(i, j ) is a corre-
lation function (the average of the product of observables measured
on systems 1 and 2), which for local realistic theories is assumed to
have the following structure


E(i, j ) = A1 (i, λ)A2 (j, λ)p(λ), (2)
λ

where in turn the functions Al (k, λ) give the values of the measur-
able variables, k = i, j , for the given system l = 1, 2, and λ is a sum-
mation (or integration) parameter which allows the description to
have a probabilistic nature. Finally p(λ) is the probabilistic distri-
bution of the parameter. The bound B(c) is the maximal possible
value of the l.h.s. of (1), allowed by the above assumed structure
of the correlation functions, and is dependent on the coefficients
c(i, j ). Finally let us stress that to derive Bell-type inequalities one
needs (2), and no other mathematical assumptions are needed.
• Separable (quantum) states are probabilistic mixtures of product
states. For example, for two subsystems a separable state can be
expanded in the following way


̺12 = P (λ)̺1 (λ)̺2 (λ), (3)
λ

where ̺i (λ) is a density operator for system i = 1, 2, and λ is any

summation (or integration) variable, and P (λ) is a probability distri-
bution. Product states satisfy all Bell-type inequalities, because their
correlation functions have the form of T r1 ̺1 (λ)Â1 (i)T r2 ̺2 (λ)Â2 (j ),
and |T rl ̺l (λ)Âl (k)| = |
Al (k)ρ |
max Al (k). Since any (convex)
probabilistic combination of states that satisfy all Bell inequalities
satisfies them too, the separable states satisfy all Bell-type inequali-
ties (those known at present, as well as those which one day would
be derived).
How is it possible that in Ref. 1 it was shown that original Bell
inequalities(2) are violated by a separable state of a two qubit system? The
mistakes in the reasoning in Ref. 1 were already commented by Simon.(3)
Separability of Quantum States 543

The aim of the present paper is to argue, using the example of Ref. 1, that
one should treat the original Bell inequality with maximum care, and to
pinpoint the minimal set of assumptions to derive it. The surprising fact
is that the original Bell inequality is not a “Bell-type” inequality, if one
defines Bell-type inequalities as those described in the opening paragraph.
To put it short, original Bell inequalities cannot be derived using only
the structure of the local realistic correlation functions given by Ref. 2.
Bell used an additional assumption, namely that the local realistic model
reveals perfect anticorrelations, of the type which can be found for two
spins 1/2 in a singlet state.
The first derived Bell-type inequality, that is one which is, as
Loubenets says, “valid for all joint classical measurements” is the Clauser–
Horne–Shimony–Holt (CHSH) one.(4) It is clearly spelled out in Ref. 4
that the motivation to derive new Bell inequality was to avoid the limita-
tion of the applicability of the original inequality to systems that reveal
perfect Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen correlations (like the two qubit singlet
states do). As perfect correlations are impossible in real laboratories, the
original Bell inequality cannot be applied to laboratory data. The origi-
nal Bell inequality is “valid for all joint classical measurements(1) ”, how-
ever only for systems endowed with specific perfect EPR correlations (see
below).

2. RELATION BETWEEN BELL-TYPE INEQUALITIES AND THE

ORIGINAL BELL INEQUALITY

As an example of a “Bell-type” inequality I shall use the CHSH

inequalities(4) (as a matter of fact these exhaust the full set of non trivial
Bell-type inequalities for two settings per observer and dichotomic observ-
ables, see Ref. 5, and for an elementary proof Ref. 6).

Assumptions of the CHSH Inequality:

• (A) Assume that Alice measures a dichotomic variable (in the quan-
tum mechanical language, an observable Ô(X)), with its possible
measurement outcomes equal to ±1 (in the quantum case, eigen-
values), which is dependent on a local macroscopic parameter X,
which can be set at random by Alice. Assume further, that Bob
measures a dichotomic variable Ô(Y ), with its possible values equal
to ±1, which is dependent of a local macroscopic parameter Y ,
which can be set at random by Bob.
544 Żukowski

• (B) Finally assume that the correlation function, which gives the
average of the product of the local results can be modeled in a local
realistic way, that is, can be expressed as


E(X, Y ) = p(λ)A1 (X, λ)A2 (Y, λ), (4)
λ

where Al (Z, λ) = ±1, for Z = X, Y , see equation (2), and the defi-
nitions around it.

CHSH Thesis:
Under such assumptions the correlation function for settings X = A,
A′ and Y = B, B ′ satisfies the following inequality

|E(A, B) − E(A, B ′ ) + E(A′ , B) + E(A′ , B ′ )|
2 (5)

(of course, the single minus sign can be anywhere).

Now let us compare this with the original Bell’s inequality.

Assumptions of the Original Bell Inequality:

• (A)
• (Minimal Additional Assumption) Assume also that when the two
observers set X = Y = B, the measurements in both labs are perfectly
anti-correlated. That is E(B, B) = −1.
• (B)

Bell’s Original Thesis:

Under such assumptions the correlation function for settings X = A,
B and Y = B, C satisfies the following inequality

|E(A, B) − E(A, C)|
1 − E(B, C). (6)

Without the additional assumption the original Bell inequality can-

not be derived. Note, that Bell originally assumed much more than the
“minimal additional assumption”, namely that for any observable D one
has E(D, D) = −1. However, such a strong demand is not needed to derive
his original inequality.
The example of Loubenets does not have the minimal property
required for derivation of the original inequality, that is E(B, B) = −1.
As a matter of fact
Separability of Quantum States 545

E(B, B) = −3/4. (7)

In the example of Loubenets E(X, Y ) = − cos 2X cos 2Y , and the local set-
ting B is equal, in Ref. 1, to π/6.
Since the original Bell inequality holds only for local realistic systems
with the property E(B, B) = −1 (well, one could also derive a different ver-
sion of it, for the opposite type of perfect EPR correlations, E(B, B) = 1),
the example of Loubenets cannot be analyzed with the use of the original
inequality, because first of all it violates the assumption that E(B, B) = −1.
To put if differently, if the original Bell inequality is violated, then atleast of
its assumptions cannot be valid. The interesting case is when the assump-
tion of local realism cannot be valid, the trivial case is when the required
correlation E(B, B) = −1 is not valid. Because the correlation function,
E(X, Y ) = − cos 2X cos 2Y , is factorisable, despite the violation of original
Bell inequality, the separable state studied by Loubenets has a trivial local
realistic model for all possible quantum predictions. Thus the only conclu-
sion that can be drawn from the violation of the inequality is that E(B, B) =
−1, but to check this, one does not need the original Bell inequality.
Finally, one can show that any separable state, which has the prop-
erty that for a certain dichotomic observable B one has E(B, B) = −1,
satisfies the original Bell inequality. This requires a trivial modification of
the reasoning presented in the beginning of this work.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The work is dedicated to Prof. Emilio Santos-Corchero, on the occa-

sion of his 70th birthday. The author wants to thank him for his hospi-
tality during visits in Santander, and for the never ending disputes on the
basic ideas in quantum theory and quantum optics. The work is part of
the MNiI Grant no. 1 P03 04927. MZ acknowledges Professorial Subsidy
of FNP.

REFERENCES

1. E. R. Loubenets, Phys. Rev. A 69, 042102 (2004).

2. J. S. Bell, Physics 1, 195 (1964).
3. C. Simon, Phys. Rev. A 71, 026102 (2005).
4. J. Clauser, M. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. Holt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 880 (1969).
5. A. Fine, J. Math. Phys. 23, 1306 (1982).
6. M. Żukowski and Č. Brukner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 210401 (2002).