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:2001.02977 · Entropy

Two Faced Janus of Quantum Nonlocality

Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

Published Mar 6, 2020• 47 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

This paper is a new step towards understanding why "quantum nonlocality" is a misleading concept. Metaphorically speaking, "quantum nonlocality" is Janus faced. One face is an apparent nonlocality of the Lüders projection and another face is Bell nonlocality (a wrong conclusion that the violation of Bell type inequalities implies the existence of mysterious instantaneous influences between distant physical systems). According to the Lüders projection postulate, a quantum measurement performed on one of the two distant entangled physical systems modifies their compound quantum state instantaneously. Therefore, if the quantum state is considered to be an attribute of the individual physical system and if one assumes that experimental outcomes are produced in a perfectly random way, one quickly arrives at the contradiction. It is a primary source of speculations about a spooky action at a distance. Bell nonlocality as defined above was explained and rejected by several authors; thus, we concentrate in this paper on the apparent nonlocality of the Lüders projection. As already pointed out by Einstein, the quantum paradoxes disappear if one adopts the purely statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics (QM). In the statistical interpretation of QM, if probabilities are considered to be objective properties of random experiments we show that the Lüders projection corresponds to the passage from joint probabilities describing all set of data to some marginal conditional probabilities describing some particular subsets of data. If one adopts a subjective interpretation of probabilities, such as QBism, then the Lüders projection corresponds to standard Bayesian updating of the probabilities. The latter represents degrees of beliefs of local agents about outcomes of individual measurements which are placed or which will be placed at distant locations. In both approaches, probability-transformation does not happen in the physical space, but only in the information space. Thus, all speculations about spooky interactions or spooky predictions at a distance are simply misleading. Coming back to Bell nonlocality, we recall that in a recent paper we demonstrated, using exclusively the quantum formalism, that CHSH inequalities may be violated for some quantum states only because of the incompatibility of quantum observables and Bohr's complementarity. Finally, we explain that our criticism of quantum nonlocality is in the spirit of Hertz-Boltzmann methodology of scientific theories.

DOI
10.3390/e22030303

Related papers

Two Faces of Quantum Nonlocality and Two Interpretations of Quantum State

Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

This chapter is a step towards understanding why quantum nonlocalityis a misleading concept. Metaphorically speaking, quantum nonlocality isJanus faced. One face is an apparent nonlocality of the state update basedon the Luders projection postulate. It can be referred as intrinsic quantumnonlocality. And the other face is subquantumnonlocality: by introducing a special model with hidden variables onederives the Bell inequality and claims that its violation implies the existenceof mysterious instantaneous influences between distant physical systems(Bell nonlocality). According to the Luders projection postulate, aquantum measurement performed on one of the two distant entangled physicalsystems, say on S1, modifies instantaneously the state of S2. Therefore, ifthe quantum state is considered to be an attribute of the individual physicalsystem (Copenhagen interpretation) and if one assumes thatexperimental outcomes are produced in a random way one arrives at the contradiction. It is a primary source of speculation about aspooky action at the distance. But Einstein had already pointed out that the quantum paradoxes disappear, ifone adopts the statistical interpretation.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Nov 28, 2024•0 citations

Is the Devil in h?

Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

This note is a part of my effort to rid quantum mechanics (QM) nonlocality. Quantum nonlocality is a two faced Janus: one face is a genuine quantum mechanical nonlocality (defined by the Lüders' projection postulate). Another face is the nonlocality of the hidden variables model that was invented by Bell. This paper is devoted the deconstruction of the latter. The main casualty of Bell's model is that it straightforwardly contradicts Heisenberg's uncertainty and Bohr's complementarity principles generally. Thus, we do not criticize the derivation or interpretation of the Bell inequality (as was done by numerous authors). Our critique is directed against the model as such. The original Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) argument assumed the Heisenberg's principle without questioning its validity. Hence, the arguments of EPR and Bell differ crucially, and it is necessary to establish the physical ground of the aforementioned principles. This is the quantum postulate: the existence of an indivisible quantum of action given by the Planck constant. Bell's approach with hidden variables implicitly implies rejection of the quantum postulate, since the latter is the basis of the reference principles.

Entropy•May 19, 2021•23 citations

EPR paradox, quantum nonlocality and physical reality

Marian Kupczyński

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.

arXiv:1602.02959•Journal of Physics Conference Series•Mar 1, 2016•27 citations

Get Rid of Nonlocality from Quantum Physics

Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

This paper is aimed to dissociate nonlocality from quantum theory. We demonstrate that the tests on violation of the Bell type inequalities are simply statistical tests of local incompatibility of observables. In fact, these are tests on violation of the Bohr complementarity principle. Thus, the attempts to couple experimental violations of the Bell type inequalities with “quantum nonlocality” is really misleading. These violations are explained in the quantum theory as exhibitions of incompatibility of observables for a single quantum system, e.g., the spin projections for a single electron or the polarization projections for a single photon. Of course, one can go beyond quantum theory with the hidden variables models (as was suggested by Bell) and then discuss their possible nonlocal features. However, conventional quantum theory is local.

arXiv:1907.02702•Entropy•Aug 18, 2019•97 citations

Entanglement and quantum nonlocality demystified

Marian Kupczyński

Quantum nonlocality is presented often as the most remarkable and inexplicable phenomenon known to modern science. It has been known already for a long time that the probabilistic models used to prove Bell and Clauser-Horn-Shimony-Holt inequalities (BI-CHSH) for spin polarization correlation experiments (SPCE) are incompatible with the experimental protocols of SPCE. In particular these models use the same common probability space, joint probability distributions and/or conditional independence to describe coincidence experiments in incompatible experimental settings. Strangely enough these results are not known or simply neglected. This is why we will once again reanalyze Bell locality assumptions and show that they have nothing to do with the notion of Einsteinian locality therefore their violation should not be called quantum nonlocality but rather quantum non-Kolmogorovness or quantum contextuality. Moreover if local variables describing the measuring instruments are correctly taken into account then BI-CHSH can no longer be proven and one can easily construct non-signaling probabilistic models able to reproduce the predictions of QT. The violation of BI-CHSH is considered usually as a proof that a quantum state is entangled. Since BI-CHSH are violated also in some experiments from outside the domain of quantum physics therefore the entanglement is not exclusively a quantum phenomenon. In order to further demystify these notions we show that one can prepare two macroscopic systems in such a way that simple realizable local experiments on these systems violate BI. In view of these arguments the further testing of BI-CHSH inequalities in search for the loopholes does not seem to be necessary.

arXiv:1205.4636•AIP conference proceedings•Jan 1, 2012•30 citations

Is the Moon There If Nobody Looks: Bell Inequalities and Physical Reality

Marian Kupczyński

Bell-CHSH inequalities are trivial algebraic properties satisfied by each line of Nx4 spreadsheets containing ±1 entries, thus it is surprising that their violation in some experiments allows to speculate about the existence of nonlocal influences in nature and casts doubt on the existence of external physical reality. Such speculations are rooted in incorrect interpretations of quantum mechanics and in a failure of local realistic hidden variable models to reproduce quantum predictions for spin polarisation correlation experiments (SPCE). In these models, one uses a counterfactual joint probability distribution of only pairwise measurable random variables (A, A’, B, B’) to prove Bell-CHSH inequalities. In SPCE Alice and Bob, using 4 incompatible pairs of experimental settings, estimate imperfect correlations between clicks registered by their detectors. Clicks announce detection of photons and are coded by ±1. Expectations of corresponding random variables: E (AB), E (AB’), E (A’B) and E (A’B’) are estimated and compared with quantum predictions. These estimates significantly violate CHSH inequalities. Since variables (A, A’) as well as (B, B’) cannot be measured jointly, neither Nx4 spreadsheets nor a joint probability distribution of (A, A’, B, B’) exist, thus Bell-CHSH inequalities may not be derived. Nevertheless, imperfect correlations between clicks in SPCE may be explained in a locally causal way, if contextual setting-dependent parameters describing measuring instruments are correctly included in the description. The violation of Bell-CHSH inequalities may not therefore justify the existence of a spooky action at the distance, super-determinism or speculations that an electron can be here and a meter away at the same time. In this paper we review and rephrase several arguments proving that such conclusions are unfounded. Entangled photon pairs cannot be described as pairs of socks nor as pairs of fair dice producing in each trial perfectly correlated outcomes. Thus the violation of inequalities confirms only that the measurement outcomes and `the fate of photons ` are not predetermined before the experiment is done. It does not allow for doubt regarding the objective existence of atoms, electrons and other invisible elementary particles which are the building blocks of the visible world around us including ourselves.

arXiv:2004.14570•Frontiers in Physics•Sep 23, 2020•42 citations
This paper is a new step towards understanding why "quantum nonlocality" is a misleading concept. Metaphorically speaking, "quantum nonlocality" is Janus faced. One face is an apparent nonlocality of the Lüders projection and another face is Bell nonlocality (a wrong conclusion that the violation of Bell type inequalities implies the existence of mysterious instantaneous influences between distant physical systems). According to the Lüders projection postulate, a quantum measurement performed on one of the two distant entangled physical systems modifies their compound quantum state instantaneously. Therefore, if the quantum state is considered to be an attribute of the individual physical system and if one assumes that experimental outcomes are produced in a perfectly random way, one quickly arrives at the contradiction. It is a primary source of speculations about a spooky action at a distance. Bell nonlocality as defined above was explained and rejected by several authors; thus, we concentrate in this paper on the apparent nonlocality of the Lüders projection. As already pointed out by Einstein, the quantum paradoxes disappear if one adopts the purely statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics (QM). In the statistical interpretation of QM, if probabilities are considered to be objective properties of random experiments we show that the Lüders projection corresponds to the passage from joint probabilities describing all set of data to some marginal conditional probabilities describing some particular subsets of data. If one adopts a subjective interpretation of probabilities, such as QBism, then the Lüders projection corresponds to standard Bayesian updating of the probabilities. The latter represents degrees of beliefs of local agents about outcomes of individual measurements which are placed or which will be placed at distant locations. In both approaches, probability-transformation does not happen in the physical space, but only in the information space. Thus, all speculations about spooky interactions or spooky predictions at a distance are simply misleading. Coming back to Bell nonlocality, we recall that in a recent paper we demonstrated, using exclusively the quantum formalism, that CHSH inequalities may be violated for some quantum states only because of the incompatibility of quantum observables and Bohr's complementarity. Finally, we explain that our criticism of quantum nonlocality is in the spirit of Hertz-Boltzmann methodology of scientific theories.
This chapter is a step towards understanding why quantum nonlocalityis a misleading concept. Metaphorically speaking, quantum nonlocality isJanus faced. One face is an apparent nonlocality of the state update basedon the Luders projection postulate. It can be referred as intrinsic quantumnonlocality. And the other face is subquantumnonlocality: by introducing a special model with hidden variables onederives the Bell inequality and claims that its violation implies the existenceof mysterious instantaneous influences between distant physical systems(Bell nonlocality). According to the Luders projection postulate, aquantum measurement performed on one of the two distant entangled physicalsystems, say on S1, modifies instantaneously the state of S2. Therefore, ifthe quantum state is considered to be an attribute of the individual physicalsystem (Copenhagen interpretation) and if one assumes thatexperimental outcomes are produced in a random way one arrives at the contradiction. It is a primary source of speculation about aspooky action at the distance. But Einstein had already pointed out that the quantum paradoxes disappear, ifone adopts the statistical interpretation.
This note is a part of my effort to rid quantum mechanics (QM) nonlocality. Quantum nonlocality is a two faced Janus: one face is a genuine quantum mechanical nonlocality (defined by the Lüders' projection postulate). Another face is the nonlocality of the hidden variables model that was invented by Bell. This paper is devoted the deconstruction of the latter. The main casualty of Bell's model is that it straightforwardly contradicts Heisenberg's uncertainty and Bohr's complementarity principles generally. Thus, we do not criticize the derivation or interpretation of the Bell inequality (as was done by numerous authors). Our critique is directed against the model as such. The original Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) argument assumed the Heisenberg's principle without questioning its validity. Hence, the arguments of EPR and Bell differ crucially, and it is necessary to establish the physical ground of the aforementioned principles. This is the quantum postulate: the existence of an indivisible quantum of action given by the Planck constant. Bell's approach with hidden variables implicitly implies rejection of the quantum postulate, since the latter is the basis of the reference principles.
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.
This paper is aimed to dissociate nonlocality from quantum theory. We demonstrate that the tests on violation of the Bell type inequalities are simply statistical tests of local incompatibility of observables. In fact, these are tests on violation of the Bohr complementarity principle. Thus, the attempts to couple experimental violations of the Bell type inequalities with “quantum nonlocality” is really misleading. These violations are explained in the quantum theory as exhibitions of incompatibility of observables for a single quantum system, e.g., the spin projections for a single electron or the polarization projections for a single photon. Of course, one can go beyond quantum theory with the hidden variables models (as was suggested by Bell) and then discuss their possible nonlocal features. However, conventional quantum theory is local.
Quantum nonlocality is presented often as the most remarkable and inexplicable phenomenon known to modern science. It has been known already for a long time that the probabilistic models used to prove Bell and Clauser-Horn-Shimony-Holt inequalities (BI-CHSH) for spin polarization correlation experiments (SPCE) are incompatible with the experimental protocols of SPCE. In particular these models use the same common probability space, joint probability distributions and/or conditional independence to describe coincidence experiments in incompatible experimental settings. Strangely enough these results are not known or simply neglected. This is why we will once again reanalyze Bell locality assumptions and show that they have nothing to do with the notion of Einsteinian locality therefore their violation should not be called quantum nonlocality but rather quantum non-Kolmogorovness or quantum contextuality. Moreover if local variables describing the measuring instruments are correctly taken into account then BI-CHSH can no longer be proven and one can easily construct non-signaling probabilistic models able to reproduce the predictions of QT. The violation of BI-CHSH is considered usually as a proof that a quantum state is entangled. Since BI-CHSH are violated also in some experiments from outside the domain of quantum physics therefore the entanglement is not exclusively a quantum phenomenon. In order to further demystify these notions we show that one can prepare two macroscopic systems in such a way that simple realizable local experiments on these systems violate BI. In view of these arguments the further testing of BI-CHSH inequalities in search for the loopholes does not seem to be necessary.
Bell-CHSH inequalities are trivial algebraic properties satisfied by each line of Nx4 spreadsheets containing ±1 entries, thus it is surprising that their violation in some experiments allows to speculate about the existence of nonlocal influences in nature and casts doubt on the existence of external physical reality. Such speculations are rooted in incorrect interpretations of quantum mechanics and in a failure of local realistic hidden variable models to reproduce quantum predictions for spin polarisation correlation experiments (SPCE). In these models, one uses a counterfactual joint probability distribution of only pairwise measurable random variables (A, A’, B, B’) to prove Bell-CHSH inequalities. In SPCE Alice and Bob, using 4 incompatible pairs of experimental settings, estimate imperfect correlations between clicks registered by their detectors. Clicks announce detection of photons and are coded by ±1. Expectations of corresponding random variables: E (AB), E (AB’), E (A’B) and E (A’B’) are estimated and compared with quantum predictions. These estimates significantly violate CHSH inequalities. Since variables (A, A’) as well as (B, B’) cannot be measured jointly, neither Nx4 spreadsheets nor a joint probability distribution of (A, A’, B, B’) exist, thus Bell-CHSH inequalities may not be derived. Nevertheless, imperfect correlations between clicks in SPCE may be explained in a locally causal way, if contextual setting-dependent parameters describing measuring instruments are correctly included in the description. The violation of Bell-CHSH inequalities may not therefore justify the existence of a spooky action at the distance, super-determinism or speculations that an electron can be here and a meter away at the same time. In this paper we review and rephrase several arguments proving that such conclusions are unfounded. Entangled photon pairs cannot be described as pairs of socks nor as pairs of fair dice producing in each trial perfectly correlated outcomes. Thus the violation of inequalities confirms only that the measurement outcomes and `the fate of photons ` are not predetermined before the experiment is done. It does not allow for doubt regarding the objective existence of atoms, electrons and other invisible elementary particles which are the building blocks of the visible world around us including ourselves.