In several recent communications (Khrennikov 2019a, b, c, 2020a, b), A. Khrennikov argued for "eliminating the issue of quantum nonlocality" from the analysis of quantum entanglement and quantum phenomena in general. He proposed to differentiate quantum and classical phenomena and entanglement not by their respective nonlocality and locality, as is common, but by the discreteness of quantum phenomena vs. the continuity of classical phenomena, supplemented by Bohr's complementarity in the case of quantum phenomena. As I argue here, however, the question may not be that of "eliminating the issue of quantum nonlocality" but instead of illuminating this issue, a task that can, I also argue, be pursued by relating quantum nonlocality to other key features of quantum phenomena. I suggest that the following features of quantum phenomena and quantum mechanics, distinguishing them from classical phenomena and classical physics--(1) the irreducible role of measuring instruments in defining quantum phenomena; (2) discreteness; (3) complementarity; (4) entanglement; (5) quantum nonlocality; and (6) the irreducibly probabilistic nature of quantum predictions--are all interconnected in defining quantum phenomena and distinguishing them from classical ones, so that it is difficult to give an unconditional priority to any one of them. To argue this case, I consider quantum phenomena and quantum mechanics from a nonrealist or, in terms adopted here, "reality-without-realism" (RWR) perspective. This perspective extends and gives new dimensions to Bohr's view, grounded in his analysis of the irreducible tole of measuring instruments in the constitution of quantum phenomena, with quantum measurement defined by the entanglements between the quantum object under investigation and the instrument used.
In several recent communications (Khrennikov 2019a, b, c, 2020a, b), A. Khrennikov argued for "eliminating the issue of quantum nonlocality" from the analysis of quantum entanglement and quantum phenomena in general. He proposed to differentiate quantum and classical phenomena and entanglement not by their respective nonlocality and locality, as is common, but by the discreteness of quantum phenomena vs. the continuity of classical phenomena, supplemented by Bohr's complementarity in the case of quantum phenomena. As I argue here, however, the question may not be that of "eliminating the issue of quantum nonlocality" but instead of illuminating this issue, a task that can, I also argue, be pursued by relating quantum nonlocality to other key features of quantum phenomena. I suggest that the following features of quantum phenomena and quantum mechanics, distinguishing them from classical phenomena and classical physics--(1) the irreducible role of measuring instruments in defining quantum phenomena; (2) discreteness; (3) complementarity; (4) entanglement; (5) quantum nonlocality; and (6) the irreducibly probabilistic nature of quantum predictions--are all interconnected in defining quantum phenomena and distinguishing them from classical ones, so that it is difficult to give an unconditional priority to any one of them. To argue this case, I consider quantum phenomena and quantum mechanics from a nonrealist or, in terms adopted here, "reality-without-realism" (RWR) perspective. This perspective extends and gives new dimensions to Bohr's view, grounded in his analysis of the irreducible tole of measuring instruments in the constitution of quantum phenomena, with quantum measurement defined by the entanglements between the quantum object under investigation and the instrument used.
This article reconsiders the concept of physical reality in quantum theory and the concept of quantum measurement, following Bohr, whose analysis of quantum measurement led him to his concept of a (quantum) "phenomenon," referring to "the observations obtained under the specified circumstances," in the interaction between quantum objects and measuring instruments. This situation makes the terms "observation" and "measurement," as conventionally understood, inapplicable. These terms are remnants of classical physics or still earlier history, from which classical physics inherited it. As defined here, a quantum measurement does not measure any preexisting property of the ultimate constitution of the reality responsible for quantum phenomena. An act of measurement establishes a quantum phenomenon by an interaction between the instrument and the quantum object or in the present view the ultimate constitution of the reality responsible for quantum phenomena and, at the time of measurement, also quantum objects. In the view advanced in this article, in contrast to that of Bohr, quantum objects, such as electrons or photons, are assumed to exist only at the time of measurement and not independently, a view that redefines the concept of quantum object as well. This redefinition becomes especially important in high-energy quantum regimes and quantum field theory and allows this article to define a new concept of quantum field. The article also considers, now following Bohr, the quantum measurement as the entanglement between quantum objects and measurement instruments. The argument of the article is grounded in the concept "reality without realism" (RWR), as underlying quantum measurement thus understood, and the view, the RWR view, of quantum theory defined by this concept. The RWR view places a stratum of physical reality thus designated, here the reality ultimately responsible for quantum phenomena, beyond representation or knowledge, or even conception, and defines the corresponding set of interpretations quantum mechanics or quantum field theory, such as the one assumed in this article, in which, again, not only quantum phenomena but also quantum objects are (idealizations) defined by measurement. As such, the article also offers a broadly conceived response to J. Bell's argument "against 'measurement'".
The argument of this article is threefold. First, the article argues that from its rise in the sixteenth century to our own time, the advancement of modern physics as mathematical-experimental science has been defined by the invention of new mathematical structures. Second, the article argues that quantum theory, especially following quantum mechanics, gives this thesis a radically new meaning by virtue of the following two features: on the one hand, quantum phenomena are defined as essentially different from those found in all previous physics by purely physical features; and on the other, quantum mechanics and quantum field theory are defined by purely mathematical postulates, which connect them to quantum phenomena strictly in terms of probabilities, without, as in all previous physics, representing or otherwise relating to how these phenomena physically come about. While these two features may appear discordant, if not inconsistent, I argue that they are in accord with each other, at least in certain interpretations (including the one adopted here), designated as “reality without realism”, RWR, interpretations. This argument also allows this article to offer a new perspective on a thorny problem of the relationships between continuity and discontinuity in quantum physics. In particular, rather than being concerned only with the discreteness and continuity of quantum objects or phenomena, quantum mechanics and quantum field theory relate their continuous mathematics to the irreducibly discrete quantum phenomena in terms of probabilistic predictions while, at least in RWR interpretations, precluding a representation or even conception of how these phenomena come about. This subject is rarely, if ever, discussed apart from previous work by the present author. It is, however, given a new dimension in this article which introduces, as one of its main contributions, a new principle: the mathematical complexity principle.
Abstract: Quantum entanglement is one of the most remarkable phenomena in modern physics — a situation in which two particles, without any apparent physical connection, exhibit perfectly coordinated behaviour. This striking feature has led many to conclude that the universe must be fundamentally nonlocal. In this paper, we show that entanglement can be explained without any recourse to nonlocality, within a fully classical and deterministic framework. In this view, all physical phenomena arise from a single, continuous underlying substrate; what we call "entanglement" is simply a reflection of sharing this common foundation. The theory reproduces all known results of quantum experiments, including the violation of Bell inequalities, by relaxing the assumption of measurement independence — a step that is both physically motivated and locally consistent. A new testable prediction is also offered. The conclusion is that entanglement is not evidence of nonlocality, but rather a manifestation of the fundamental unity of nature
The argument of this article is threefold. First, the article argues that, from its rise in the sixteenth century to our own time, the advancement of modern physics, as mathematical-experimental science, has been defined by the invention of new mathematical structures. Secondly, the article argues that quantum theory, specifically with quantum mechanics, gave this thesis a radically new meaning by virtue of the following two features: one the one hand, quantum phenomena themselves are defined by purely physical features, as essentially different from all previous physics; and on the other, quantum mechanics and quantum field theory are defined by purely mathematical postulates, which connect them to quantum phenomena strictly in terms of probabilities, without representing or otherwise relating to how these phenomena physically come about. While these two features may appear discordant, if not inconsistent, I argue that they are in accord with each other, at least in certain interpretations (including the one adopted here), designated as “reality without realism,” RWR, interpretations. This argument allows this article to offer a new perspective on a thorny problem of the relationships between continuity and discontinuity in quantum physics. In particular, rather than being concern only with the discreteness and continuity of quantum objects or phenomena, quantum mechanics and quantum field theory relate their continuous mathematics to the irreducibly discrete quantum phenomena, in terms of probabilistic predictions, while, at least in RWR interpretations, precluding a representation or even conception of how these phenomena come about. This subject is rarely, if ever discussed, apart from previous work by the present author. It will, however, be given a new dimension in this article which introduces, as one of its main contributions, a new principle: the mathematical complexity principle.
Following the view of several leading quantum-information theorists, this paper argues that quantum phenomena, including those exhibiting quantum correlations (one of their most enigmatic features), and quantum mechanics may be best understood in quantum-informational terms. It also argues that this understanding is implicit already in the work of some among the founding figures of quantum mechanics, in particular W. Heisenberg and N. Bohr, half a century before quantum information theory emerged and confirmed, and gave a deeper meaning to, to their insights. These insights, I further argue, still help this understanding, which is the main reason for considering them here. My argument is grounded in a particular interpretation of quantum phenomena and quantum mechanics, in part arising from these insights as well. This interpretation is based on the concept of reality without realism, RWR (which places the reality considered beyond representation or even conception), introduced by this author previously, in turn, following Heisenberg and Bohr, and in response to quantum information theory.
Quantum mechanics is nonlocal. Classical mechanics is local. Consequently classical mechanics can not explain all quantum phenomena. Conversely, it is cumbersome to use quantum mechanics to describe classical phenomena. Not only are the computations more complex, but - and this is the main point - it is conceptually more difficult: one has to argue that nonlocality, entanglement and the principle of superposition can be set aside when crossing the "quantum → classical" border. Clearly, nonlocality, entanglement and the principle of superposition should become irrelevant in the classical limit. But why should one argue? Shouldn't it just come out of the equations? Does it come out of the equations? This contribution is about the last question. And the answer is: "it depends on which equation".