Bell's theorem rules out developing a locally causal theory to describe quantum phenomena. Many take this to imply that any model of quantum entanglement must employ variables (called beables by Bell) which follow nonlocal rules, even though signaling is local. The alternative is to adopt an all-at-once (block universe) approach, with beables which may depend on both past and future inputs, even though signaling is causal. Within this lenient-causality approach (a.k.a. retrocausal), simple cases of entanglement have been successfully described by locally mediated stochastic toy models, i.e.,~toy models which are local in a sense which generalizes Bell's local causality. Developing a widely applicable reformulation of quantum mechanics along these lines is a grand challenge. This work presents a general framework for such models and theories, and identifies the corresponding ontic and epistemic states. The epistemic state is closely analogous to the quantum state, yielding an explanation for the collapse of the wavefunction. In the case of the models of the framework, it is clear what the information is about. The expression for the empirically verifiable predictions of the models in terms of the ontic and epistemic states displays remarkable parallels to the Born rule. A toy-model example is discussed.
Bell's theorem rules out developing a locally causal theory to describe quantum phenomena. Many take this to imply that any model of quantum entanglement must employ variables (called beables by Bell) which follow nonlocal rules, even though signaling is local. The alternative is to adopt an all-at-once (block universe) approach, with beables which may depend on both past and future inputs, even though signaling is causal. Within this lenient-causality approach (a.k.a. retrocausal), simple cases of entanglement have been successfully described by locally mediated stochastic toy models, i.e.,~toy models which are local in a sense which generalizes Bell's local causality. Developing a widely applicable reformulation of quantum mechanics along these lines is a grand challenge. This work presents a general framework for such models and theories, and identifies the corresponding ontic and epistemic states. The epistemic state is closely analogous to the quantum state, yielding an explanation for the collapse of the wavefunction. In the case of the models of the framework, it is clear what the information is about. The expression for the empirically verifiable predictions of the models in terms of the ontic and epistemic states displays remarkable parallels to the Born rule. A toy-model example is discussed.
Quantum nonlocality has been a long-standing and fascinating problem in the foundations of quantum theory since its proof by the Bell inequality. It seems to contradict our intuitive picture of space-time and thus urges us to reconsider its foundation. With the advent of quantum information science, it has attracted renewed interest from a fundamental point of view as well as from a quantum information-theoretic one. Another fundamental question on the nature of quantum theory is how we understand what quantum states represent. (Quantum states hereafter refer to pure states.) This is also a long-standing problem since the early days of quantum theory. Roughly speaking, there are two conflicting views on this matter: one is ontology and the other is epistemology. Ontological models of quantum theory are models in which we assume some underlying reality for physical systems and require that all the predictions of quantum theory should be reproduced. The ontological models are divided into two categories, depending on which views the models are based on, ontology or epistemology. In the models based on ontology, quantum states represent the underlying reality in some sense, and different quantum states correspond to different realities. In the models based on epistemology, quantum states do not necessarily correspond to the underlying realities, and even different quantum states can be consistent with a common underlying reality. The former type of ontological models of quantum theory is called 1⁄4-ontic. The latter is called 1⁄4-epistemic. Thus, it might be rather confusing that ontological models are classified further into 1⁄4-ontic models and 1⁄4-epistemic ones. We use these terms here in accordance with the recent literature on quantum foundations. (For details of these notions in the ontological models of quantum theory, see the paper by Harrigan and Spekkens.) Quite recently, the question just mentioned has been answered by Pusey et al., and one of the above models has been refuted. It was shown that 1⁄4-epistemic models are inconsistent with the predictions of quantum theory. In other words, epistemological views on quantum states turned out to be false as long as we assume some underlying reality for physical systems. Therefore, only 1⁄4-ontic models of quantum theory are valid for describing quantum systems. This significantly advances our understanding on the nature of quantum states. It is expected that various conclusions will be drawn from this fact. In this paper, we will discuss a connection with nonlocality. The above two fundamental questions, nonlocality and the nature of quantum states, are intimately connected, and the connection was first implicitly recognised by Einstein in the early days of quantum theory. In a private correspondence with Schrodinger, Einstein constructed a fascinating argument that relates the above two. (That argument is distinctly different from the well-known EPR argument.) Recently, it was revisited and reconstructed in accordance with more rigorous notions in quantum foundations. Nonlocality is usually shown by violations of Bell inequalities. (Bell inequalities hereafter include all the subsequent developments such as the CHSH inequality.) Even if it is not clear whether the models of quantum theory are 1⁄4-ontic or 1⁄4-epistemic, we can prove nonlocality just by showing the violation of Bell inequalities. However, the above argument originated by Einstein implies that if we know the models are 1⁄4-ontic in advance (as we do now), we can prove nonlocality in a simpler way without Bell inequalities. (This argument had been known in quantum foundations before the refutation of 1⁄4-epistemic models.) Nonlocality is rigorously defined as a violation of the notion of local causality defined by Bell. Showing the violation of Bell inequalities is one way of demonstrating the violation of local causality. Since the simpler proof initiated by Einstein directly demonstrates the violation of local causality, it is a more straightforward proof of nonlocality from a conceptual point of view. In the following, we will see that this simple argument of nonlocality without Bell inequalities can be used to show multipartite nonlocality as well. Before moving onto multipartite cases, first let us define the necessary notions for presenting our result. First of all, we assume that there exists a complete specification of the properties of a physical system, which we refer to as the ontic state of that system. The ontic states represent the underlying realities and are not necessarily equal to ordinary quantum states. (In other words, the ontic states correspond to hidden variables.) Ontological models of quantum theory are models that assume ontic states and reproduce all the predictions of quantum theory. An important question is how ontic states correspond to quantum states in quantum theory. In order to frame the question accurately, we need the notion of an epistemic state, which represents the relation between them. Suppose we prepare a physical system in a quantum state 1⁄4. Although the system is uniquely specified as 1⁄4 in quantum theory, there still remains a possibility that it allows a more detailed specification in the ontic state space, in which case many different ontic states turn out to be consistent with 1⁄4. The relation between ontic states and the preparation procedure, P1⁄4, is described by a conditional probability distribution over the ontic state space, pð jP1⁄4Þ, which we refer to as an epistemic state. In general, the preparation P can be a preparation of a physical system in a mixed sate. Unless there exists a one-to-one correspondence between ontic states and quantum states, the probability distribution spreads over . (See Fig. 1.) The question of whether an ontological model is 1⁄4-ontic or 1⁄4-epistemic is concerned with the behaviour of the epistemic states for two distinct preparations of quantum states. Consider two distinct preparations of quantum states, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 82 (2013) 055003
One of the basic assumptions underlying Bell's theorem is the causal arrow of time, having to do with temporal order rather than spatial separation. Nonetheless, the physical assumptions regarding causality are seldom studied in this context, and often even go unmentioned, in stark contrast with the many different possible locality conditions which have been studied and elaborated upon. In the present work, some retrocausal toy-models which reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics for Bell-type correlations are reviewed. It is pointed out that a certain toy-model which is ostensibly superdeterministic-based on denying the free-variable status of some of quantum mechanics' input parameters-actually contains within it a complete retrocausal toy-model. Occam's razor thus indicates that the superdeterministic point of view is superfluous. A challenge is to generalize the retrocausal toy-models to a full theory-a reformulation of quantum mechanics-in which the standard causal arrow of time would be replaced by a more lenient one: an arrow of time applicable only to macroscopically-available information. In discussing such a reformulation, one finds that many of the perplexing features of quantum mechanics could arise naturally, especially in the context of stochastic theories.
It has been claimed that quantum mechanics is a non-local theory, i.e., that the predictions of quantum mechanics are at odds with a conception of the world where all the interactions are mediated by local mechanisms. The cited reason is the violation of the Bell inequality in cases where measurements are performed on quantum systems of particles that have interacted in the past. Quantum mechanics predicts that the state of the particles in such a system are correlated, a result obtained from considering a thought-experiment often known as EPR. In this thesis, I will argue that the violation of the Bell inequality in EPR forces us to either accept that causes sometimes act both backwards and forwards in time, or give up some widely-held assumptions about causal relations or the role of causal explanations. First, I will present three principles regarding causality that I take be widely accepted. I will then present the background for the claim the quantum mechanics is a non-local theory, and discuss the implications of non-local causal influences in light of the Special Theory of Relativity. One argument against a causal explanation of the EPR-correlations will be discussed, and different models for the causal structure of EPR will be assessed. I will argue that a retrocausal model – models that include instances of retrocausation, where the direction of causation is the opposite of the direction of time – is the only viable option if we want to uphold the three principles presented in chapter 1. I will discuss the plausibility of rejecting one of these principles, and argue that at least one of the can be restricted in a way that still accounts for our commitment to it. Finally, I will assess the non-local models against the retrocausal models, and argue that a retrocausal model offers interpretational advantages over the non-local alternatives.
The standard interpretation of quantum measurement on entangled systems holds that measuring one particle nonlocally collapses the wavefunction of its spacelike-separated partner. We argue that this conclusion rests on a false presupposition: that subsystems of entangled systems possess independent ontic states. If the global wavefunction is the sole ontic object (ψ-ontic holism), then for entangled systems, there is no "state of B" to be affected by measurement at A. Measurement is a local dynamical process-concretely modeled by continuous spontaneous localization-that destroys one local wavefunction component at the measurement site; the global state factorizes as a consequence, and subsystem ontology emerges for the first time. The transition of the distant particle's reduced density matrix from mixed to pure reflects this emergence of separability, not a physical change at the distant location. The framework satisfies no-signaling and embraces the contextuality required by the Kochen-Specker and GHZ theorems. We are explicit about its relation to Bell's theorem: Bell local causality (factorizability) fails, as it must in any empirically adequate theory, but the failure is confined to outcome independence and is identified with the nonseparability of the global ontic state, while parameter independence-and with it the locality of the dynamics-holds exactly. Decoherence provides the mechanism by which the global wavefunction factorizes and classical separability emerges. The apparent nonlocality of quantum mechanics is thus reinterpreted as nonseparability: the fundamental ontology is holistic, but the dynamics are local.
While Bell nonlocality can be explained through mechanisms such as retrocausality and superluminal influences, it is not clear why such mechanisms do not manifest at an everyday macroscopic level. In this paper, we show how measurement and nonlocality can be explained consistently with macroscopic realism and no-signaling, and causal relations for macroscopic quantities. Considering the measurement of a field amplitude x ̂ , we derive theorems that lead to an equivalence between a quantum phase-space probability distribution Q ( x , p , t ) and stochastic trajectories for real amplitudes x ( t ) and p ( t ) propagating backward and forward in time, respectively. We present forward-backward stochastic simulations that motivate a Q -based objective-field model of reality. Amplification plays a key role in the measurement. With amplification, similar to decoherence, contributions due to interference become unobservable, leading to “branches” in x that correspond to distinct eigenvalues λ . This elucidates how the system evolves from a superposition to an eigenstate, from which Born's rule follows. For superposition states, we find that the backward and forward trajectories are connected, leading to “hidden loops.” We deduce a hybrid causal structure involving causal deterministic relations for amplified variables, along with microscopic noise inputs and hidden loops for unobservable quantities. Causal consistency is confirmed, removing grandfather-type paradoxes. The simulations allow evaluation of a state inferred for the system, conditioned on a particular branch λ , from which we deduce a model for projection and the collapse of the wave function. The theory is extended to Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen correlations and Bell nonlocality. We demonstrate consistency with three weak local realistic premises: (1) the existence of real properties (defined for the system after operations that fix measurement settings); (2) a partial locality implying no-signaling; (3) “elements of reality” that apply to the predictions of a system by a meter, once meter settings are fixed. A Q -based hidden variable model and mechanism for Bell nonlocality is identified. Our work shows how forward-backward stochastic simulations lead to a hybrid causal structure, involving both deterministic causal relations and “hidden” stochastic loops, explaining measurement and entanglement, with paradoxes typically associated with retrocausality avoided.
Unlike our basic theories of space and time, quantum mechanics is not a locally causal theory. Moreover, it is widely believed that any hopes of restoring local causality within a realistic theory have been undermined by Bell's theorem and its supporting experiments. By contrast, we provide a strictly local, deterministic, and realistic explanation for the correlations observed in two such supporting experiments, performed independently at Orsay and Innsbruck. To this end, a pair of local variables is constructed to simulate detections of photon polarizations at various angles, chosen freely by Alice and Bob. These generate purely random outcomes, A = +1 or -1 and B = +1 or -1, occurring within a parallelized 3-sphere. These outcomes do not depend on the contexts of measurements, but are determined entirely by the randomly chosen initial orientation of the 3-sphere. When they are compared, however, the correlation between them turn out to be exactly equal to -cos2(alpha - beta), with the corresponding CHSH inequality violated for the polarization angles alpha, alpha', beta, and beta' in precisely the manner predicted by quantum mechanics. The key ingredient in our explanation is the topology of the 3-sphere, which remains closed under multiplication, thus preserving the locality condition of Bell. It allows us to model the physical space as a 3-sphere, and reveals that the illusion of quantum nonlocality in the present case stems from a twist in the Hopf fibration of the 3-sphere.