I define a notion of local causality LOC closely modelled on the Bell principle, construed as the condition that single case probabilities cannot be modified by actions at spacelike separation. The new principle, like that of Bell, forces Bell inequalities, but with two loopholes: one is retrocausation, known to Bell, but the other is nonuniqueness of remote outcomes, a loophole only for LOC, not for the Bell principle. I also set out a theory of physical probability, applicable to the Everett interpretation, in agreement with the Born rule, and therefore violating Bell inequalities. I show it is consistent with LOC. Surprisingly, both loopholes are exploited. I conclude not only that probability in the Everett interpretation involves no action at a distance, but that the observed violations of Bell inequalities is powerful evidence for many worlds.
Comments
To appear in Alyssa Ney (ed), Everett and Nonlocality, Oxford University Press, 2026
I define a notion of local causality LOC closely modelled on the Bell principle, construed as the condition that single case probabilities cannot be modified by actions at spacelike separation. The new principle, like that of Bell, forces Bell inequalities, but with two loopholes: one is retrocausation, known to Bell, but the other is nonuniqueness of remote outcomes, a loophole only for LOC, not for the Bell principle. I also set out a theory of physical probability, applicable to the Everett interpretation, in agreement with the Born rule, and therefore violating Bell inequalities. I show it is consistent with LOC. Surprisingly, both loopholes are exploited. I conclude not only that probability in the Everett interpretation involves no action at a distance, but that the observed violations of Bell inequalities is powerful evidence for many worlds.
I define a notion of locality LOC, closely modelled on Bell's principle of local causality, construed as the condition that single-case probabilities cannot be modified by actions at spacelike separation. The new principle, like Bell's, forces Bell inequalities, but with two loopholes: one is violation of measurement independence, known to Bell, but the other is non-uniqueness of remote outcomes, a loophole only for LOC, not for Bell's principle. I also set out a theory of physical probability, applicable to the Everett interpretation, in which the Born rule is derived, and which therefore violates Bell inequalities. I show it is consistent with LOC. Surprisingly, both loopholes are exploited. I conclude not only that physical probability in the Everett interpretation involves no action at a distance, in the sense of LOC, but that the observed violation of Bell inequalities is powerful evidence for many worlds.
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.
Between 1964 and 1990, the notion of nonlocality in Bell's papers underwent a profound change as his nonlocality theorem gradually became detached from quantum mechanics, and referred to wider probabilistic theories involving correlations between separated beables. The proposition that standard quantum mechanics is itself nonlocal (more precisely, that it violates ‘local causality’) became divorced from the Bell theorem per se from 1976 on, although this important point is widely overlooked in the literature. In 1990, the year of his death, Bell would express serious misgivings about themathematical form of the local causality condition and leave ill-defined the issue of the consistency between special relativity and violation of the Bell-type inequality. In our view, the significance of the Bell theorem, in both its deterministic and stochastic forms, can only be fully understood by taking into account the fact that a fully Lorentz covariant version of quantum theory, free of action at a distance, can be articulated in the Everett interpretation. Introduction John S. Bell's last word on his celebrated nonlocality theorem and its interpretation appeared in his 1990 paper ‘La nouvelle cuisine’, first published in the year of his untimely death. Bell was careful here to distinguish between the issue of ‘no superluminal signalling’ in quantum theory (both quantum field theory and quantum mechanics) and a principle he first introduced explicitly in 1976 and called ‘local causality’ [1]. In relation to the former, Bell expressed concerns that amplify doubts he had already expressed in 1976. These concerns touch on what is now widely known as the no-signalling theorem in quantum mechanics, and ultimately have to do with Bell's distaste for what he saw as an anthropocentric element in orthodox quantum thinking. In relation to local causality, Bell emphasised that his famous factorizability (no-correlations) condition is not to be seen ‘as the formulation of local causality, but as a consequence thereof’ and stressed how difficult he found it to articulate this consequence. He left the question of any strict inconsistency between violation of factorizability and special relativity theory unresolved, a not insignificant shift from his thinking up to the early 1980s.
Abstract Probability is distinguished into two kinds: physical and epistemic, also, but less accurately, called objective and subjective. Simple postulates are given for physical probability, the only novel one being a locality condition. Translated into no-collapse quantum mechanics, without hidden variables, the postulates imply that the elements in any equiamplitude expansion of the quantum state are equiprobable. Such expansions therefore provide ensembles of microstates that can be used to define probabilities in the manner of frequentism, in von Mises’ sense (where the probability of P is the frequency of occurrence of P in a suitable ensemble). The result is the Born rule. Since satisfying our postulates, and in particular the locality condition (meaning no action-at-a-distance), these probabilities for no-collapse quantum mechanics are perfectly local, even though they violate Bell inequalities. The latter can be traced to a violation of outcome independence, used to derive the inequalities. But in no-collapse theory it is not a locality condition; it is a criterion for entanglement, not locality.
Loophole-free violations of Bell inequalities imply that at least one of the assumptions behind local hidden-variable theories must fail. Here, we show that, if only one fails, then it has to fail completely, therefore excluding models that partially constrain freedom of choice or allow for partial retrocausal influences, or allow partial instantaneous actions at a distance. Specifically, we show that (i) any hidden-variable theory with outcome independence (OI) and arbitrary joint relaxation of measurement independence (MI) and parameter independence (PI) can be experimentally excluded in a Bell-like experiment with many settings on high-dimensional entangled states, and (ii) any hidden-variable theory with MI, PI and arbitrary relaxation of OI can be excluded in a Bell-like experiment with many settings on qubit-qubit entangled states. Loophole-free violations of Bell inequalities imply that at least one of the assumptions formalising local hidden-variable theories must fail. Here, the authors show that, if only one is false, then it has to fail completely, therefore excluding models that allow partial instantaneous actions at a distance, partially constrain freedom of choice or allow for partial retrocausal influences.
We discuss the recently observed “loophole free” violation of Bell’s inequalities in the framework of a physically realist view of quantum mechanics (QM), which requires that physical properties are attributed jointly to a system, and to the context in which it is embedded. This approach is clearly different from classical realism, but it does define a meaningful “quantum realism” from a general philosophical point of view. Consistently with Bell test experiments, this quantum realism embeds some form of non-locality, but does not contain any action at a distance, in agreement with QM.