It is known that "quantum non locality", leading to the violation of Bell's inequality and more generally of classical local realism, can be attributed to the conjunction of two properties, which we call here elementary locality and predictive completeness. Taking this point of view, we show again that quantum mechanics violates predictive completeness, allowing the making of contextual inferences, which can, in turn, explain why quantum non locality does not contradict relativistic causality. An important question remains: if the usual quantum state ψ is predictively incomplete, how do we complete it? We give here a set of new arguments to show that ψ should be completed indeed, not by looking for any "hidden variables", but rather by specifying the measurement context, which is required to define actual probabilities over a set of mutually exclusive physical events.
It is known that "quantum non locality", leading to the violation of Bell's inequality and more generally of classical local realism, can be attributed to the conjunction of two properties, which we call here elementary locality and predictive completeness. Taking this point of view, we show again that quantum mechanics violates predictive completeness, allowing the making of contextual inferences, which can, in turn, explain why quantum non locality does not contradict relativistic causality. An important question remains: if the usual quantum state ψ is predictively incomplete, how do we complete it? We give here a set of new arguments to show that ψ should be completed indeed, not by looking for any "hidden variables", but rather by specifying the measurement context, which is required to define actual probabilities over a set of mutually exclusive physical events.
In this article we argue that what is usually called non locality, leading to the violation of Bell's inequality and more generally of classical local realism, can be explained by considering contextual inferences, that are both possible and necessary in quantum physics. They do not show up in classical physics, where contexts may be discarded because physical properties are non-contextual. This analysis allows us to explain why non locality does not contradict relativistic causality. Our argument is general from a probabilistic point of view, and it strongly suggests that the usual quantum formalism must be completed, by specifying the measurement context.
Why ψ is incomplete indeed: a simple illustration
With the Nobel Prize attributed to Aspect, Clauser, and Zeilinger, the international scientific community acknowledged the fundamental importance of the experimental violation of Bell's inequalities. It is however still debated what fails in Bell's hypotheses, leading to these inequalities, and usually summarized as "local realism", or maybe more appropriately "classical local realism". The most common explanation is "quantum non-locality", that remains however fully compatible with relativistic causality; this makes wondering whether any non-local phenomenon is really involved in these experiments. Here we want to recapitulate another option, sometimes called "predictive incompleteness", closely related to the idea that the usual state vector ψ is incomplete indeed, as it was claimed by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen. However, the right way to complete ψ has nothing to do with hidden variables, but requires to specify the measurement context, as it was claimed by Bohr. Here we will consider the simple case of two spin 1/2, or two qubits, in order to keep the argument simple, but it does apply generally in quantum mechanics.
In a recent note, Hance and Hossenfelder (arXiv:2211.01331) recall that "locally causal completions of quantum mechanics are possible, if they violate the assumption [called statistical independence or measurement independence] that the hidden variables do not in any way depend on measurement settings" and that, consequently, the experimental violations of Bell inequalities "show that maintaining local causality requires violating statistical independence". However, Hance and Hossenfelder also argue that "we should (...) look for independent experimental evidence that can distinguish the two different options: non-locality and statistical independence, or locality and violations of statistical independence" and that "the unwillingness to consider theories without statistical independence may be the reason we do not yet have a locally causal theory for the foundations of physics that is consistent with general relativity". Here, we recall that there is a third option, namely, rejecting that measurement outcomes are governed in any way by hidden variables. Moreover, we argue that some recent results in the search for principles singling out the sets of quantum correlations for Bell and Kochen-Specker contextuality scenarios point out that this third option is scientifically more plausible and answers the question of why and how nature produces quantum nonlocality.
The problem of the existence of nonlocal effects in Quantum Mechanics is discussed. The problem is divided in two: the first ('soft') one is to explain the violation of Bell's inequalities as a statistical magnitude. This can be achieved by a simple model within non-Boolean Locality and Realism. This result shows that quantum non-Locality as a consequence of the statistical violation of Bell's inequalities is inexistent. The second ('hard') problem is to explain the violation as it is calculated from series of detection outcomes. L.Sica has demonstrated that, in order to violate Bell's inequalities, the series recorded at (say) Bob when the setting at station Alice is alfa, can be different from the series that would have been recorded at Bob if that setting had been alfa'instead. Therefore, non-Locality in the series of detection outcomes does exist. It cannot be experimentally verified because of its counterfactual nature, but is observed in computer simulations. An appropriate computer code is based on the simple model mentioned plus a contextual instruction. It explains 'how' (Sica's) non-Locality arises, and solves the hard problem. 'Why' the contextual instruction exists is explained by Hellwig and Kraus' postulate of covariant quantum state collapse. In consequence, (Sica's) non-Locality is not in contradiction with Relativity but, quite the opposite, it is implied by Relativistic covariance.
Abstract Quantum theory has accounted for a wide range of physical effects in systems ranging from microscopic to macroscopic. However, it is associated with various paradoxes—such as the well-known EPR example. Einstein’s suggestion that the theory was incomplete has led to numerous attempts to underpin quantum theory by a hidden variable theory, including the Bell approach. This approach was originally based on certain assumptions: (i) realism (ii) locality and (iii) non-contextuality. In its developed form, the theory involved only probabilities for outcome values of system observables. For systems involving two sub-systems, the hidden variable theory predicted that correlations between measurement outcomes of observable pairs of from different sub-systems would satisfy certain—such as the CHSH Bell inequality. The inequality was inconsistent with quantum theory predictions and with experiment. Hence, the question arose: Which of the three assumptions was invalid? A widely held view is that a non-local theory is needed—another is that hidden variable theory should be contextual. In this article, derivations of the CHSH Bell inequality based on various combinations of locality/non-locality and non-contextuality/contextuality assumptions are outlined, leading to the conclusion that for a hidden variable theory to underpin quantum theory, it must be both non-local and contextual. Non-locality or contextuality alone is insufficient. However, it is also concluded that the realism assumption is questionable. At present an alternative approach of augmenting quantum theory by adding additional features—such as the deterministic trajectories of Bohmian mechanics (also a non-local theory) may be a better route for completeness.
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.