Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:1604.03959

Are Local Causal Models of Quantum Theory Feasible at All?

Hans H. Diel

Published Apr 13, 2016• 3 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

This article presents an analysis of the extent to which local causal models or local realistic models of quantum theory (QT), including quantum field theory (QFT), are theoretically possible and practically feasible in light of the present state of these theories. Quantum physicists consider Bells famous inequality and its violation in experiments to be a strong indication that local realistic or local causal models of QT are not possible and that quantum theory as a whole is therefore not a local realistic or local causal theory. Based on a proposed definition of a "formal causal model" for a theory of physics (such as QT), this paper investigates the possibility of having a local causal model for QT. Areas of QT are identified in which the construction of a causal model is impeded because of deficiencies in the state of the respective theory. It is shown that the removal of the deficiencies can be achieved by the provision of a causal model. Whereas the construction of a causal model of QT, including QFT, appears to be feasible after the removal of certain deficiencies, the construction of a local (causal) model does not appear to be possible. As a consequence of the conclusion that local (causal) models of QT/QFT are not possible, if a strong interpretation of locality is assumed, a locality model is proposed in which the non-localities are confined to "quantum objects".

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1604.03959

Related papers

Collective Behavior in a Local Causal Model of Quantum Theory

Hans H. Diel

The non-localities in quantum theory (QT) (the most famous example is expressed in the violation of Bell's inequality in experiments) impede the construction of a local causal model of QT including quantum field theory (QFT).The laws of collective behavior may be considered to be types of non-local laws: laws that apply to the collection of system components as a whole.The article presents a proposal for the treatment of the non-localities that exist in QT/QFT by the concepts of collective behavior.The basic components of the collective behavior are the spatial elements of the causal model of QT/QFT proposed by the author.

OALib•Jan 1, 2017•6 citations

Spacetime Structures in a Causal Model of Quantum Theory

Hans H. Diel

The enterprise to construct a local causal model of quantum theory (QT), including quantum field theory (QFT), resulted in the identification of "quantum objects" as the elementary units of causality and locality.Quantum objects are collections of particles (including single particles) whose collective dynamics and measurement results can only be described by the laws of QT/ QFT.Quantum objects run autonomously with system state update frequency based on their local proper time and with no or minimal dependency on external parameters.The autonomy of quantum objects necessitates well-defined causal interrelationships between quantum objects and spacetime: 1) Quantum objects are embedded in space and move within space.2) In the proposed causal model, the dynamics of space is triggered by the dynamics of the quantum objects.The causal model of QT/QFT assumes discretized spacetime similar to the spacetime of causal dynamical triangulation.

OALib•Jan 1, 2017•2 citations

Quantum objects as elementary units of causality and locality

Hans H. Diel

The author's attempt to construct a local causal model of quantum theory (QT) that includes quantum field theory (QFT) resulted in the identification of "quantum objects" as the elementary units of causality and locality. Quantum objects are collections of particles (including single particles) whose collective dynamics and measurement results can only be described by the laws of QT and QFT. Local causal models of quantum objects' internal dynamics are not possible if a locality is understood as a space-point locality. Within quantum objects, state transitions may occur which instantly affect the whole quantum object. The identification of quantum objects as the elementary units of causality and locality has two primary implications for a causal model of quantum objects: (1) quantum objects run autonomously with system-state update frequencies based on their local proper times and with either no or minimal dependency on external parameters. (2) The laws of physics that describe global (but relativistic) interrelationships must be translated to a causal model of interactions between quantum objects and interactions between quantum objects and the space.

arXiv:1609.04242•Sep 4, 2016•8 citations

Local Realism Versus Quantum Computers & Quantum Information Theory

Andrew P. Yake

Local realism reduces to the proposition that every physical effect arises exclusively at the spacetime locality where the determinate properties of physical reality determine that it be so. The causal model of quantum theory, however, and thus all prospects for quantum computers, require that local realism is false. The essential argument favoring quantum beliefs is that local realism cannot explain empirical Bell violations, whereas quantum theory can. By contrast, the article cited below offers compelling evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, such alleged refutations of local realism are predicated on an interpretation of the Bell inequality that many researchers reject (the cited article provides specific references). Meanwhile, the causal model of quantum theory reduces to the quantum formalism itself, which distributes outcomes across separate localities without providing enough information to determine what those outcomes are. More specifically, depending on subtleties of interpretation, the quantum formalism requires either: (A) There exists a bit of physical information such that this bit exists as mutually exclusive states, or (B) there exists a bit of physical information such that this bit is not physically informed. They are both contradictions. Pick your poison. Or reconsider local realism. See ** http://vixra.org/abs/1704.0078 ** Local Realism Explains Bell Violations (author Andrew P. Yake) - for a demonstration that all empirical evidence taken to support quantum theory over local realism plausibly does the reverse. The article comprises 8 pages, 4 figures, 6 equations, 32 references, 1 graph of testable predictions, and 2 paragraphs that purport to expose how the Bell inequality misrepresents the local realistic predictions for the EPR experiment. Thoughtful feedback appreciated (apyake@gmail.com).

•Apr 1, 2017•0 citations

Quantum non-locality—it ainʼt necessarily so...

Marek Żukowski, Časlav Brukner

Bell's theorem is 50 years old. Still there is a controversy about its implications. Much of it has its roots in confusion regarding the premises from which the theorem can be derived. Some claim that a derivation of Bell's inequalities requires just locality assumption, and nothing more. Violations of the inequalities are then interpreted as ``nonlocality'' or ``quantum nonlocality''. We show that such claims are unfounded and that every derivation of Bell's inequalities requires a premise -- in addition to locality and freedom of choice -- which is either assumed tacitly, or unconsciously, or is embedded in a single compound condition (like Bell's ``local causality''). The premise is equivalent to the assumption of existence of additional variables which do not appear in the quantum formalism (in form of determinism, or joint probability for outcomes of all conceivable measurements, or ``additional causes`'', or ``hidden variables'', ``complete description of the state'' or counterfactual definiteness, etc.). A certain irony is that perhaps the main message of violation of Bell's inequalities is that our notion of locality should be based on an operationally well-defined no-signalling condition, rather than on local causality.

arXiv:1501.04618•Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical•Oct 9, 2014•100 citations

The completeness, computability, and extensibility of quantum theory

Hans H. Diel

The long lasting discussion on the completeness of quantum theory (QT) has not yet come to an end. The discussion is impeded by the lack of a clear understanding of what makes up the contents of a theory of physics in general and of QT specifically. After such an understanding has been developed, a more precise definition of global properties, such as the completeness, computability, and extensibility of a theory, is possible and necessary. This paper addresses these subjects for theories of physics and, in particular, for QT. The basis for the definition of the completeness of a theory is the proposed definition of a "formal causal model of a physical theory". The formal model can be applied to discussions of general attributes, such as completeness, computability, and extensibility.

arXiv:1512.08720•Dec 11, 2015•8 citations
This article presents an analysis of the extent to which local causal models or local realistic models of quantum theory (QT), including quantum field theory (QFT), are theoretically possible and practically feasible in light of the present state of these theories. Quantum physicists consider Bells famous inequality and its violation in experiments to be a strong indication that local realistic or local causal models of QT are not possible and that quantum theory as a whole is therefore not a local realistic or local causal theory. Based on a proposed definition of a "formal causal model" for a theory of physics (such as QT), this paper investigates the possibility of having a local causal model for QT. Areas of QT are identified in which the construction of a causal model is impeded because of deficiencies in the state of the respective theory. It is shown that the removal of the deficiencies can be achieved by the provision of a causal model. Whereas the construction of a causal model of QT, including QFT, appears to be feasible after the removal of certain deficiencies, the construction of a local (causal) model does not appear to be possible. As a consequence of the conclusion that local (causal) models of QT/QFT are not possible, if a strong interpretation of locality is assumed, a locality model is proposed in which the non-localities are confined to "quantum objects".
The non-localities in quantum theory (QT) (the most famous example is expressed in the violation of Bell's inequality in experiments) impede the construction of a local causal model of QT including quantum field theory (QFT).The laws of collective behavior may be considered to be types of non-local laws: laws that apply to the collection of system components as a whole.The article presents a proposal for the treatment of the non-localities that exist in QT/QFT by the concepts of collective behavior.The basic components of the collective behavior are the spatial elements of the causal model of QT/QFT proposed by the author.
The enterprise to construct a local causal model of quantum theory (QT), including quantum field theory (QFT), resulted in the identification of "quantum objects" as the elementary units of causality and locality.Quantum objects are collections of particles (including single particles) whose collective dynamics and measurement results can only be described by the laws of QT/ QFT.Quantum objects run autonomously with system state update frequency based on their local proper time and with no or minimal dependency on external parameters.The autonomy of quantum objects necessitates well-defined causal interrelationships between quantum objects and spacetime: 1) Quantum objects are embedded in space and move within space.2) In the proposed causal model, the dynamics of space is triggered by the dynamics of the quantum objects.The causal model of QT/QFT assumes discretized spacetime similar to the spacetime of causal dynamical triangulation.
The author's attempt to construct a local causal model of quantum theory (QT) that includes quantum field theory (QFT) resulted in the identification of "quantum objects" as the elementary units of causality and locality. Quantum objects are collections of particles (including single particles) whose collective dynamics and measurement results can only be described by the laws of QT and QFT. Local causal models of quantum objects' internal dynamics are not possible if a locality is understood as a space-point locality. Within quantum objects, state transitions may occur which instantly affect the whole quantum object. The identification of quantum objects as the elementary units of causality and locality has two primary implications for a causal model of quantum objects: (1) quantum objects run autonomously with system-state update frequencies based on their local proper times and with either no or minimal dependency on external parameters. (2) The laws of physics that describe global (but relativistic) interrelationships must be translated to a causal model of interactions between quantum objects and interactions between quantum objects and the space.
Local realism reduces to the proposition that every physical effect arises exclusively at the spacetime locality where the determinate properties of physical reality determine that it be so. The causal model of quantum theory, however, and thus all prospects for quantum computers, require that local realism is false. The essential argument favoring quantum beliefs is that local realism cannot explain empirical Bell violations, whereas quantum theory can. By contrast, the article cited below offers compelling evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, such alleged refutations of local realism are predicated on an interpretation of the Bell inequality that many researchers reject (the cited article provides specific references). Meanwhile, the causal model of quantum theory reduces to the quantum formalism itself, which distributes outcomes across separate localities without providing enough information to determine what those outcomes are. More specifically, depending on subtleties of interpretation, the quantum formalism requires either: (A) There exists a bit of physical information such that this bit exists as mutually exclusive states, or (B) there exists a bit of physical information such that this bit is not physically informed. They are both contradictions. Pick your poison. Or reconsider local realism. See ** http://vixra.org/abs/1704.0078 ** Local Realism Explains Bell Violations (author Andrew P. Yake) - for a demonstration that all empirical evidence taken to support quantum theory over local realism plausibly does the reverse. The article comprises 8 pages, 4 figures, 6 equations, 32 references, 1 graph of testable predictions, and 2 paragraphs that purport to expose how the Bell inequality misrepresents the local realistic predictions for the EPR experiment. Thoughtful feedback appreciated (apyake@gmail.com).
Bell's theorem is 50 years old. Still there is a controversy about its implications. Much of it has its roots in confusion regarding the premises from which the theorem can be derived. Some claim that a derivation of Bell's inequalities requires just locality assumption, and nothing more. Violations of the inequalities are then interpreted as ``nonlocality'' or ``quantum nonlocality''. We show that such claims are unfounded and that every derivation of Bell's inequalities requires a premise -- in addition to locality and freedom of choice -- which is either assumed tacitly, or unconsciously, or is embedded in a single compound condition (like Bell's ``local causality''). The premise is equivalent to the assumption of existence of additional variables which do not appear in the quantum formalism (in form of determinism, or joint probability for outcomes of all conceivable measurements, or ``additional causes`'', or ``hidden variables'', ``complete description of the state'' or counterfactual definiteness, etc.). A certain irony is that perhaps the main message of violation of Bell's inequalities is that our notion of locality should be based on an operationally well-defined no-signalling condition, rather than on local causality.
The long lasting discussion on the completeness of quantum theory (QT) has not yet come to an end. The discussion is impeded by the lack of a clear understanding of what makes up the contents of a theory of physics in general and of QT specifically. After such an understanding has been developed, a more precise definition of global properties, such as the completeness, computability, and extensibility of a theory, is possible and necessary. This paper addresses these subjects for theories of physics and, in particular, for QT. The basis for the definition of the completeness of a theory is the proposed definition of a "formal causal model of a physical theory". The formal model can be applied to discussions of general attributes, such as completeness, computability, and extensibility.