I present my encounter with John Bell at CERN, our collaboration and joint work in particle physics. I also will recall our quantum debates and give my personal view on Bell's fundamental work on quantum theory, in particular, on contextuality and nonlocality of quantum physics. Some mathematical and geometric aspects of entanglement are discussed as influence of Bell's Theorem. Finally, I make some historical comments on the experimental side of Bell inequalities.
I present my encounter with John Bell at CERN, our collaboration and joint work in particle physics. I also will recall our quantum debates and give my personal view on Bell's fundamental work on quantum theory, in particular, on contextuality and nonlocality of quantum physics. Some mathematical and geometric aspects of entanglement are discussed as influence of Bell's Theorem. Finally, I make some historical comments on the experimental side of Bell inequalities.
I present the background of the Bohm approach that led John Bell to a study of quantum nonlocality, from which his famous inequalities emerged. I recall the early experiments done at Birkbeck with the aim of exploring the possibility of ‘spontaneous collapse’, a way suggested by Schrödinger to avoid the conclusion that quantum mechanics is grossly nonlocal. I also review some of the work that John did which directly impinged on my own investigations into the foundations of quantum mechanics and report some new investigations towards a more fundamental theory. Introduction My first encounter with quantum nonlocality was in discussions with David Bohm when I joined him as an assistant lecturer at Birkbeck in the sixties. Although my PhD thesis had been in condensed matter physics under the supervision of Cyril Domb, I had always been fascinated and puzzled by quantum phenomena, and when the opportunity to study the subject with Bohm came up, I took it. I would listen to the discussions between Bohm and Roger Penrose, who was at Birkbeck at the time, and it soon became clear that the prescribed interpretation of quantum mechanics that I was taught as an undergraduate left too many questions unanswered. At that time there was a very strange atmosphere in the physics community. I was often informed that there were no problems with the interpretation of the quantum formalism. If I did not follow the well-prescribed rules of the quantum algorithm, I would be ‘wasting my time’. There was no alternative, just do it! But Louis de Broglie and David Bohm had shown there was another way. However, their views were strongly opposed by many, and as far as I could judge their reasons did not seem to be based on mathematics or on logic, but on a preconceived notion that the formalism was, in principle, the best we could do. The experimental data were bizarre when looked upon from the standpoint of classical physics, but the uncertainty principle somehow prevented us from examining the actual process in detail. Reality was somehow veiled (see [1]).Were we condemned to use a mere algorithm or was there an underlying ontology?
Various interpretations of quantum mechanics, favored (or neglected) by John Bell in the context of his nonlocality theorem, are compared and discussed. Varenna 1970 I met John Bell for the first time at the Varenna conference of 1970 [1]. I had been invited on the suggestion of Eugene P. Wigner, who had already helped me to publish my first paper on the concept that was later called decoherence – to appear in the first issue of Foundations of Physics a few months after the conference [2]. This concept arose from my conviction, based on many applications of quantum mechanics to composite systems under various conditions, that Schrödinger's wave function in configuration space, or more generally the superposition principle, is universally valid and applicable. In particular, stable narrow wavepackets can represent classical configurations, while their superpositions define novel individual properties – such as “momentum,” defined as a plane wave superposition of different positions. Superpositions of macroscopically different properties, on the other hand, are regularly irreversibly “dislocalized” (distributed over many degrees of freedom) by means of interactions described by the Schrödinger equation. The corresponding disappearance of certain local superpositions (“decoherence”) seems to explain the phenomenon of a classical world as well as the apparent occurrence of quantum jumps or stochastic “events” – see Sect. 20.4 or [3] for a historical overview of the conceptual development of quantum theory. So I had never felt any motivation to think of “hidden variables” or any other physics behind the successful wave function. Therefore, I was very surprised on my arrival in Varenna to hear everybody discuss Bell's inequality. It had been published a few years before the conference, but I had either not noticed it or not regarded it as particularly remarkable until then. As this inequality demonstrates that the predictions of quantum theory would require any conceivable reality possibly underlying the nonlocal wave function to be nonlocal itself, I simply found my conviction that the latter describes individual reality confirmed. For example, I had often discussed the conservation of total spin or angular momentum in an individual decay process, which requires nonlocal entanglement between the fragments at any distance in a form that was later called a “Bell state”.
John Stewart Bell and the debate on the significance of his contributions to the foundations of quantum mechanics, M.Jammer John Bell as a deep critical testimony of modern physics, V. de Alfaro magic moments with John Bell, R. Bertlmann what if Bell had come before Copenhagen?, J. Cushing quantum mechanics vs. realism in the context of two-state oscillations, D. Home one or two bell theorems?, B. Despagnat self interference of two photons, J. Rarity polarization correlation analysis of the simultaneous two-photon emission of metastable hydrogen, H. Kleinpoppen unneeded use of Bell inequalities conceals the physics in the EPR subject, O. Piccioni Bell's other theorem and its connection with nonlocality - Part 1 H. Brown Bell's other theorem and its connection with nonlocality - Part 2 A. Elby historical reflections on the notion of an objective reality, P .Feyerabend interference, indistinguishability and nonlocality, L. Mandel quantum physics from the viewpoint of realism, F. Selleri (Part contents).
Introduction This contribution to the book in honour of J. S. Bell will probably differ from the remaining ones, in particular since only a part of it will be devoted to specific technical arguments. In fact I have considered it appropriate to share with the community of physicists interested in the foundational problems of our best theory the repeated interactions I had with him in the last four years of his life, the deep discussions in which we have been involved in particular in connection with the elaboration of collapse theories and their interpretation, and the contributions he gave to the development of this approach at a formal level, as well as championing it on repeated occasions. In brief, I intend to play here the role of one of those lucky persons who became acquainted with him personally, who has exchanged important views with him, who has learned a lot from his deep insight and conceptual lucidity, and, last but not least, whose scientific work has been appreciated by him. Moreover, due to the fact that this book intends to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the derivation of the fundamental inequality which bears his name, I will also devote a small part of the text to recalling his clearcut views about the locality issue, views that I believe have not been grasped correctly by a remarkable part of the scientific community. I will analyze this problem in quite general terms at the end of the paper. Some of Bell's Scientific Achievements Bell received bachelor's degrees in experimental physics and in mathematical physics at Queen'sUniversity of Belfast in the years 1948 and 1949, respectively, and a PhD in physics at the University of Birmingham. We all know very well that already at that time he was absolutely unsatisfied with the conceptual structure of quantum mechanics and with the way in which it was taught. This is significantly expressed by the statement he made during an interview to Jeremy Bernstein: I remember arguing with one of my professors, a Doctor Sloane, about that. I was getting very heated and accusing him, more or less, of dishonesty. He was getting very heated too and said, ‘You're going too far.’
Abstract My discussions with John Bell about reality in quantum mechanics are recollected. I would like to introduce the reader to Bell’s vision of reality which was for him a natural position for a scientist. Bell had a strong aversion against “quantum jumps” and insisted to be clear in phrasing quantum mechanics, his “words to be forbidden” proclaimed with seriousness and wit – both typical Bell characteristics – became legendary. I will summarize the Bell-type experiments and what Nature responded, and discuss the implications for the physical quantities considered, the real entities and the nonlocality concept due to Bell’s work. Subsequently, I also explain a quite different view of the meaning of a quantum state, this is the information theoretic approach, focusing on the work of Brukner and Zeilinger. Finally, I would like to broaden and contrast the reality discussion with the concept of “virtuality,” with the meaning of virtual particle occurring in quantum field theory. With some of my own thoughts I will conclude the paper which is composed more as a historical article than as a philosophical one.
During the 1960s, Bell produced his seminal work on the foundations of quantum theory, first showing that, contrary to von Neumann’s argument, hidden variable theories were allowed but then that they had to be non-local. Thus, he showed that quantum theory did not respect local causality, and he outlined experiments that could be used to test whether the assumption of local realism was true in quantum theory: Bell’s theorem, or Bell’s inequality, or Bell’s inequalities. His work was followed up by John Clauser, Abner Shimony, Michael Horne, and Richard Holt, who produced the CHSH inequality. Bell had moved to CERN, where he worked on the theory of neutrino experiments, and on nuclear and elementary particle physics, making crucial suggestions concerning the use of gauge theory for each type of physical force and also producing the Adler–Bell–Jackiw anomaly, or the ABJ anomaly.