Hance and Hossenfelder recently claim that the extensive experimental confirmations of Bell's Theorem do not in fact demonstrate that nature is nonlocal, but merely that nature can be local only if the distant detector settings in a Bell-EPR setup are not statistically independent. They suggest that such interdependence could take a local-deterministic form. There is no question that in general quantum mechanics not only allows but demands that the distant detectors be entangled and thus correlated, even though it is possible to do experiments in which such correlations can be ignored. The real question is whether entanglement itself could have a deterministic explanation. We review why any such attempted deterministic underpinning for quantum statistics would run into immediate conflict with quantum indeterminacy and the noncommutativity upon which the latter is based. Some cosmological implications are briefly explored.
Hance and Hossenfelder recently claim that the extensive experimental confirmations of Bell's Theorem do not in fact demonstrate that nature is nonlocal, but merely that nature can be local only if the distant detector settings in a Bell-EPR setup are not statistically independent. They suggest that such interdependence could take a local-deterministic form. There is no question that in general quantum mechanics not only allows but demands that the distant detectors be entangled and thus correlated, even though it is possible to do experiments in which such correlations can be ignored. The real question is whether entanglement itself could have a deterministic explanation. We review why any such attempted deterministic underpinning for quantum statistics would run into immediate conflict with quantum indeterminacy and the noncommutativity upon which the latter is based. Some cosmological implications are briefly explored.
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.
We argue that the conclusion of Bell theorem, namely, that there must be spatial non-local correlations in certain experimental situations, does not apply to typical individual measurements performed on entangled EPR pairs. Our claim is based on three points, (i) on the notion of quantum {\it complete measurements}; (ii) on Bell results on local yet distant measurements; and (iii) on the fact that perfect simultaneity is banned by the quantum mechanics. We show that quantum mechanics indicates that, while the measurements of the pair members are indeed space-like separated, the pair measurement is actually a sequence of two complete measurements, the first one terminating the entanglement and, therefore, the second one becoming unrelated to the initial preparation of the entangled pair. The outstanding feature of these measurements is that neither of them violates the principle of locality. We discuss that the present measurement viewpoint appears to run contrary to the usual interpretation of "superposition" of states with its concomitant "collapse" on measurement.
It is well known that there is a freedom-of-choice loophole or superdeterminism loophole in Bell's theorem. Since no experiment can completely rule out the possibility of superdeterminism, it seems that a local hidden variable theory consistent with relativity can never be excluded. In this paper, we present a new analysis of local hidden variable theories. The key is to notice that a local hidden variable theory assumes the universality of the Schroedinger equation, and it permits that a measurement can be in principle undone in the sense that the wave function of the composite system after the measurement can be restored to the initial state. We propose a variant of the EPR-Bohm experiment with reset operactions that can undo measurements. We find that according to quantum mechanics, when Alice's measurement is undone after she obtained her result, the correlation between the results of Alice's and Bob's measurements depends on the time order of these measurements, which may be spacelike separated. Since a local hidden variable theory consistent with relativity requires that relativistically non-invariant relations such as the time order of spacelike separated events have no physical significance, this result means that a local hidden variable theory cannot explain the correlation and reproduce all predictions of quantum mechanics even when assuming superdeterminism. This closes the major superdeterminism loophole in Bell's theorem.
Introduction Fifty years after the publication of Bell's theorem, there remains some controversy regarding what the theorem is telling us about quantum mechanics, and what the experimental violations of Bell inequalities are telling us about the world. This chapter represents my best attempt to be clear about what I think the lessons are. In brief: There is some sort of nonlocality inherent in any quantum theory, and, moreover, in any theory that reproduces, even approximately, the quantum probabilities for the outcomes of experiments. But not all forms of nonlocality are the same; there is a distinction to be made between action at a distance and other forms of nonlocality, and I will argue that the nonlocality needed to violate the Bell inequalities need not involve action at a distance. Furthermore, the distinction between forms of nonlocality makes a difference when it comes to compatibility with relativistic causal structure. The Bell locality condition is a condition which, if satisfied, renders possible a completely local account of the correlations between outcomes of spatially separated experiments. Bell's theorem tells us that the probabilities that we compute from quantum mechanics do not admit of such an account. Modulo auxiliary assumptions that, in my opinion, should be noncontroversial, this yields the conclusion that there must be something nonlocal about any theory that yields the quantum mechanical probabilities or anything close to them. One way to violate the Bell locality condition – and this is the way that any deterministic theory must do it – is via straightforward action at a distance. However, we should also consider the possibility of a stochastic theorywith probabilistic laws that involve irreducible correlations. The sort of nonlocality inherent in such a theory involves relations between events that are significantly different from causal relations as usually conceived. Perhaps surprisingly, such a theory, unlike its deterministic cousins, need not invoke a distinguished relation of distant simultaneity. This makes a difference for the situation of the two sorts of theories vis-a-vis relativity. Though a deterministic theory can achieve the appearance of being relativistic, at the level of observable phenomena, it can do so only by introducing a preferred foliation and with it a causal structure at odds with relativistic causal structures. Things are otherwise with dynamical collapse theories.
The violation of Bell inequalities seems to establish an important fact about the world: that it is non-local. However, this result relies on the assumption of the statistical independence of the measurement settings with respect to potential past events that might have determined them. Superdeterminism refers to the view that a local, and determinist, account of Bell inequalities violations is possible, by rejecting this assumption of statistical independence. We examine and clarify various problems with superdeterminism, looking in particular at its consequences on the nature of scientific laws and scientific reasoning. We argue that the view requires a neo-Humean account of at least some laws, and creates a significant problem for the use of statistical independence in other parts of physics and science more generally.
John Bell’s theorem of 1964 states that local elements of physical reality, existing independent of measurement, are inconsistent with the predictions of quantum mechanics (Bell, J. S. (1964), Physics (College. Park. Md). Specifically, correlations between measurement results from distant entangled systems would be smaller than predicted by quantum physics. This is expressed in Bell’s inequalities. Employing modifications of Bell’s inequalities, many experiments have been performed that convincingly support the quantum predictions. Yet, all experiments rely on assumptions, which provide loopholes for a local realist explanation of the measurement. Here we report an experiment with polarization-entangled photons that simultaneously closes the most significant of these loopholes. We use a highly efficient source of entangled photons, distributed these over a distance of 58.5 meters, and implemented rapid random setting generation and high-efficiency detection to observe a violation of a Bell inequality with high statistical significance. The merely statistical probability of our results to occur under local realism is less than 3.74×10-31, corresponding to an 11.5 standard deviation effect.