Maudlin has claimed that no local theory can reproduce the predictions of standard quantum mechanics that violate Bell’s inequality for Bohm’s version (two spin-half particles in a singlet state) of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen problem. It is argued that, on the contrary, standard quantum mechanics itself is a counterexample to Maudlin’s claim, because it is local in the appropriate sense (measurements at one place do not influence what occurs elsewhere there) when formulated using consistent principles in place of the inconsistent appeals to “measurement” found in current textbooks. This argument sheds light on the claim of Blaylock that counterfactual definiteness is an essential ingredient in derivations of Bell’s inequality.
Maudlin has claimed that no local theory can reproduce the predictions of standard quantum mechanics that violate Bell’s inequality for Bohm’s version (two spin-half particles in a singlet state) of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen problem. It is argued that, on the contrary, standard quantum mechanics itself is a counterexample to Maudlin’s claim, because it is local in the appropriate sense (measurements at one place do not influence what occurs elsewhere there) when formulated using consistent principles in place of the inconsistent appeals to “measurement” found in current textbooks. This argument sheds light on the claim of Blaylock that counterfactual definiteness is an essential ingredient in derivations of Bell’s inequality.
Most physicists agree that the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen–Bell paradox exemplifies much of the strange behavior of quantum mechanics, but argument persists about what assumptions underlie the paradox. To clarify what the debate is about, we employ a simple and well-known thought experiment involving two correlated photons to help us focus on the logical assumptions needed to construct the EPR and Bell arguments. The view presented in this paper is that the minimal assumptions behind Bell’s inequality are locality and counterfactual definiteness but not scientific realism, determinism, or hidden variables as are often suggested. We further examine the resulting constraints on physical theory with an illustration from the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics—an interpretation that we argue is deterministic, local, and realist but that nonetheless violates the Bell inequality.
Blaylock argues that the derivation of Bell’s inequality requires a hidden assumption, counterfactual definiteness, of which Bell was unaware. A careful analysis of Bell’s argument shows that Bell presupposes only locality and the predictions of standard quantum mechanics. Counterfactual definiteness, insofar as it is required, is derived in the course of the argument rather than presumed. Bell’s theorem has no direct bearing on the many worlds interpretation not because that interpretation denies counterfactual definiteness but because it does not recover the predictions of standard quantum mechanics.
Introduction The paradox of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen was advanced as an argument that quantum mechanics could not be a complete theory but should be supplemented by additional variables. These additional variables were to restore to the theory causality and locality. In this note that idea will be formulated mathematically and shown to be incompatible with the statistical predictions of quantum mechanics. It is the requirement of locality, or more precisely that the result of a measurement on one system be unaffected by operations on a distant system with which it has interacted in the past, that creates the essential difficulty. There have been attempts to show that even without such a separability or locality requirement no ‘hidden variable’ interpretation of quantum mechanics is possible. These attempts have been examined elsewhere and found wanting. Moreover, a hidden variable interpretation of elementary quantum theory has been explicitly constructed. That particular interpretation has indeed a grossly non-local structure. This is characteristic, according to the result to be proved here, of any such theory which reproduces exactly the quantum mechanical predictions. Formulation With the example advocated by Bohm and Aharonov, the EPR argument is the following. Consider a pair of spin one-half particles formed somehow in the singlet spin state and moving freely in opposite directions. Measurements can be made, say by Stern–Gerlach magnets, on selected components of the spins σ 1 and σ 2 .
J.S. Bell's remarkable 1964 theorem showed that any theory sharing the empirical predictions of orthodox quantum mechanics would have to exhibit a surprising – and, from the point of view of relativity theory, very troubling – kind of nonlocality. Unfortunately, even still on this 50th anniversary, many commentators and textbook authors continue to misrepresent Bell's theorem. In particular, one continues to hear the claim that Bell's result leaves open the option of concluding either nonlocality or the failure of some unorthodox “hidden variable” (or “determinism” or “realism”) premise. This mistaken claim is often based on a failure to appreciate the role of the earlier 1935 argument of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen in Bell's reasoning. After briefly reviewing this situation, I turn to two alternative versions of quantum theory – the “many worlds” theory of Everett and the quantum Bayesian interpretation of Fuchs, Schack, Caves, and Mermin – that purport to provide actual counterexamples to Bell's claim that nonlocality is required to account for the empirically verified quantum predictions. After analyzing each theory's grounds for claiming to explain the EPR–Bell correlations locally, however, one can see that (despite a number of fundamental differences) the two theories share a common for-all-practical-purposes (FAPP) solipsistic character. This dramatically undermines such theories’ claims to provide a local explanation of the correlations and thus, by concretizing the ridiculous philosophical lengths to which one must go to elude Bell's own conclusion, reinforces the assertion that nonlocality really is required to coherently explain the empirical data. Introduction Fifty years ago, in 1964 [1], John Stewart Bell first proved the theorem that has become widely known as “Bell's Theorem” but that Bell himself instead referred to as the “locality inequality theorem” [2]. In Bell's own view, the theorem showed that the empirical predictions of local theories will be constrained by Bell's inequality (or as Bell himself preferred to call it, the “locality inequality”). Hence, nonlocality is a necessary feature of any theory that shares the empirical predictions of standard quantum mechanics.
It is shown that when properly analyzed using principles consistent with the
use of a Hilbert space to describe microscopic properties, quantum mechanics is
a local theory: one system cannot influence another system with which it does
not interact. Claims to the contrary based on quantum violations of Bell
inequalities are shown to be incorrect. A specific example traces a violation
of the CHSH Bell inequality in the case of a spin-3/2 particle to the
noncommutation of certain quantum operators in a situation where (non)locality
is not an issue. A consistent histories analysis of what quantum measurements
measure, in terms of quantum properties, is used to identify the basic problem
with derivations of Bell inequalities: the use of classical concepts (hidden
variables) rather than a probabilistic structure appropriate to the quantum
domain. A difficulty with the original Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) argument
for the incompleteness of quantum mechanics is the use of a counterfactual
argument which is not valid if one assumes that Hilbert-space quantum mechanics
is complete; locality is not an issue. The quantum correlations that violate
Bell inequalities can be understood using local quantum common causes.
Wavefunction collapse and Schr\odinger steering are calculational procedures,
not physical processes. A general Principle of Einstein Locality rules out
nonlocal influences between noninteracting quantum systems. Some suggestions
are made for changes in terminology that could clarify discussions of quantum
foundations and be less confusing to students.
Eighty years ago Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen demonstrated that instantaneous reduction of wave function, believed to describe completely a pair of entangled physical systems, led to EPR paradox. The paradox disappears in statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics (QM) according to which a wave function describes only an ensemble of identically prepared physical systems. QM predicts strong correlations between outcomes of measurements performed on different members of EPR pairs in far-away locations. Searching for an intuitive explanation of these correlations John Bell analysed so called local realistic hidden variable models and proved that correlations consistent with these models satisfy Bell inequalities which are violated by some predictions of QM and by experimental data. Several different local models were constructed and inequalities proven. Some eminent physicists concluded that Nature is definitely nonlocal and that it is acting according to a law of nonlocal randomness. According to these law perfectly random, but strongly correlated events, can be produced at the same time in far away locations and a local and causal explanation of their occurrence cannot be given. We strongly disagree with this conclusion and we prove the contrary by analysing in detail some influential finite sample proofs of Bell and CHSH inequalities and so called Quantum Randi Challenges. We also show how one can win so called Bell's game without violating locality of Nature. Nonlocal randomness is inconsistent with local quantum field theory, with standard model in elementary particle physics and with causal laws and adaptive dynamics prevailing in the surrounding us world. The experimental violation of Bell-type inequalities does not prove the nonlocality of Nature but it only confirms a contextual character of quantum observables and gives a strong argument against counterfactual definiteness and against a point of view according to which experimental outcomes are produced in irreducible random way.