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

Zeitschrift für Naturforschung A

Locality or Non-Locality in Quantum Mechanics: Hidden Variables without "Spooky Action-at-a-Distance"

Yakir Aharonov, Alonso Botero, Marian O. Scully

Published Feb 1, 2001• 11 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Abstract The folklore notion of the "Non-Locality of Quantum Mechanics" is examined from the point of view of hidden-variables theories according to Belinfante's classification in his Survey of Hidden Variables Theories. It is here shown that in the case of EPR, there exist hidden variables theories that successfully reproduce quantum-mechanical predictions, but which are explicitly local. Since such theories do not fall into Belinfante's classification, we propose an expanded classification which includes similar theories, which we term as theories of the "third" kind. Causal implications of such theories are explored. -Pacs: 03.65.Bz

DOI
10.1515/zna-2001-0103

Related papers

Locality and causality in hidden-variables models of quantum theory

Stefan Teufel, Karin Berndl, Detlef Dürr +2 more

Motivated by Popescu's example of hidden nonlocality [Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 2619 (1995)], we elaborate on the conjecture that quantum states that are intuitively nonlocal, i.e., entangled, do not admit a local causal hidden-variables model. We exhibit quantum states which either (i) are nontrivial counterexamples to this conjecture or (ii) possess a new kind of more deeply hidden irreducible nonlocality. Moreover, we propose a nonlocality complexity classification scheme suggested by the latter possibility. Furthermore, we show that Werner's [Phys. Rev. A 40, 4277 (1989)] (and similar) hidden-variables models can be extended to an important class of generalized observables. Finally, a result of Fine [Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 291 (1982)] on the equivalence of stochastic and deterministic hidden variables is generalized to causal models.

arXiv:quant-ph/9609005•Physical Review A•Aug 1, 1997•26 citations

There Is No Action at a Distance in Quantum Mechanics, Spooky or Otherwise

S. P. Boughn

I feel compelled to respond to the frequent references to spooky action at a distance that often accompany reports of experiments investigating entangled quantum mechanical states. Most, but not all, of these articles have appeared in the popular press. As an experimentalist I have great admiration for such experiments and the concomitant advances in quantum information and quantum computing, but accompanying claims of action at a distance are quite simply nonsense. Some physicists and philosophers of science have bought into the story by promoting the nonlocal nature of quantum mechanics. In 1964, John Bell proved that classical hidden variable theories cannot reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics unless they employ some type of action at a distance. I have no problem with this conclusion. Unfortunately, Bell later expanded his analysis and mistakenly deduced that quantum mechanics and by implication nature herself are nonlocal. In addition, some of these articles present Einstein in caricature, a tragic figure who neither understood quantum mechanics nor believed it to be an accurate theory of nature. Consequently, the current experiments have proven him wrong. This is also nonsense.

arXiv:1806.07925•Jan 1, 2018•0 citations

Bell's inequality and 'ghost-like action-at-a-distance' in quantum mechanics

R. D. Mattuck

The phenomenon of nonlocality in quantum mechanics is one of its most fundamental features and is most strikingly exemplified in the discussion of the Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) type of experiment. The generality of Bell's inequality and the results of experiments done up to now show that local hidden-variable theories are ruled out as a means to resolve the famous EPR paradox. What remains for further consideration are the nonlocal and the Einstein-separable hidden-variable models. Finally, an alternative and possibly successful approach in trying to 'explain' nonlocality might involve ideas of backward causation.

European Journal of Physics•Apr 1, 1982•1 citation

A Modest View of Bell's Theorem

S. P. Boughn

In the 80 years since the seminal Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) paper, physicists and philosophers have mused about the `spooky action at a distance' aspect of quantum mechanics that so bothered Einstein. In his formal analysis of EPR-type entangled quantum states, Bell (1964) concluded that any hidden variable theory designed to reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics must necessarily be nonlocal and allow superluminal interactions. This doesn't immediately imply that nonlocality is a characteristic feature of quantum mechanics let alone a fundamental property of nature; however, many physicists and philosophers of science do harbor this belief. Experts in the field often use the term `nonlocality' to designate particular non-classical aspects of quantum entanglement and do not confuse the term with superluminal interactions. However, many physicists seem to take the term more literally. I endeavor to disabuse the latter of this notion by emphasizing that the correlations of Bell-type entanglement are a result of ordinary quantum superposition with no need to introduce nonlocality. The conclusion of the EPR paper wasn't that quantum mechanics is nonlocal but rather that it is an incomplete description of reality. For different reasons, many physicists, including me, agree with Einstein that quantum mechanics is necessarily an incomplete description of reality.

arXiv:1604.08529•Apr 28, 2016•3 citations

Quantum nonlocality without hidden variables: An algorithmic approach

Hrvoje Nikolić

Is quantum mechanics (QM) local or nonlocal? Different formulations/interpretations (FI) of QM, with or without hidden variables, suggest different answers. Different FI's can be viewed as different algorithms, which leads us to propose an algorithmic definition of locality according to which a theory is local if and only if there exists at least one FI in which all irreducible elements of that FI are local. The fact that no such FI of QM is known strongly supports quantum nonlocality.

arXiv:quant-ph/0703071•Mar 8, 2007•1 citation

Locality Is Dead! Long Live Locality!

William Sulis

Several decades of theory and experiment into EPR correlations have led to the widely held belief that reality is non-local, in spite of the fact that this violates special relativity. To date, no experiment has shown a violation of special relativity, and EPR experiments do not demonstrate the existence of superluminal information exchange, merely correlations which violate certain inequalities. Every “loophole” in these hidden variable theories has been thought plugged. However, there is much confusion in the literature due to conflation of the terms ‘locality”, “realism”, “hidden variables”, “non-contextuality”. The presence of local hidden variables is thought to necessarily lead to a Kolmogorov probability structure (hence non-contextuality), but this is an assumption, one which is not true in general once context effects are taken into account. Treated as an observational theory, several authors have shown no incompatibility between quantum mechanics and locality, and that the Bell scenario is actually about whether reality is contextual. This paper proposes a descriptive theory by assuming a generated reality (following Whitehead’s Process Theory) which can violate the principle of continuity and possess non-Kolmogorov probability structure, and reproduce the results of non-relativistic quantum mechanics, while allowing only causally local information exchange, without hidden variables. A generated reality is thus compatible with both quantum mechanics and special relativity, reproducing all of the results expected from quantum mechanics while still maintaining causally local realism. This process model thus appears to be an ideal candidate for developing theories for the unification of quantum mechanics and general relativity.

Frontiers in Physics•Sep 15, 2020•15 citations
Abstract The folklore notion of the "Non-Locality of Quantum Mechanics" is examined from the point of view of hidden-variables theories according to Belinfante's classification in his Survey of Hidden Variables Theories. It is here shown that in the case of EPR, there exist hidden variables theories that successfully reproduce quantum-mechanical predictions, but which are explicitly local. Since such theories do not fall into Belinfante's classification, we propose an expanded classification which includes similar theories, which we term as theories of the "third" kind. Causal implications of such theories are explored. -Pacs: 03.65.Bz
Motivated by Popescu's example of hidden nonlocality [Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 2619 (1995)], we elaborate on the conjecture that quantum states that are intuitively nonlocal, i.e., entangled, do not admit a local causal hidden-variables model. We exhibit quantum states which either (i) are nontrivial counterexamples to this conjecture or (ii) possess a new kind of more deeply hidden irreducible nonlocality. Moreover, we propose a nonlocality complexity classification scheme suggested by the latter possibility. Furthermore, we show that Werner's [Phys. Rev. A 40, 4277 (1989)] (and similar) hidden-variables models can be extended to an important class of generalized observables. Finally, a result of Fine [Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 291 (1982)] on the equivalence of stochastic and deterministic hidden variables is generalized to causal models.
I feel compelled to respond to the frequent references to spooky action at a distance that often accompany reports of experiments investigating entangled quantum mechanical states. Most, but not all, of these articles have appeared in the popular press. As an experimentalist I have great admiration for such experiments and the concomitant advances in quantum information and quantum computing, but accompanying claims of action at a distance are quite simply nonsense. Some physicists and philosophers of science have bought into the story by promoting the nonlocal nature of quantum mechanics. In 1964, John Bell proved that classical hidden variable theories cannot reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics unless they employ some type of action at a distance. I have no problem with this conclusion. Unfortunately, Bell later expanded his analysis and mistakenly deduced that quantum mechanics and by implication nature herself are nonlocal. In addition, some of these articles present Einstein in caricature, a tragic figure who neither understood quantum mechanics nor believed it to be an accurate theory of nature. Consequently, the current experiments have proven him wrong. This is also nonsense.
The phenomenon of nonlocality in quantum mechanics is one of its most fundamental features and is most strikingly exemplified in the discussion of the Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) type of experiment. The generality of Bell's inequality and the results of experiments done up to now show that local hidden-variable theories are ruled out as a means to resolve the famous EPR paradox. What remains for further consideration are the nonlocal and the Einstein-separable hidden-variable models. Finally, an alternative and possibly successful approach in trying to 'explain' nonlocality might involve ideas of backward causation.
In the 80 years since the seminal Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) paper, physicists and philosophers have mused about the `spooky action at a distance' aspect of quantum mechanics that so bothered Einstein. In his formal analysis of EPR-type entangled quantum states, Bell (1964) concluded that any hidden variable theory designed to reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics must necessarily be nonlocal and allow superluminal interactions. This doesn't immediately imply that nonlocality is a characteristic feature of quantum mechanics let alone a fundamental property of nature; however, many physicists and philosophers of science do harbor this belief. Experts in the field often use the term `nonlocality' to designate particular non-classical aspects of quantum entanglement and do not confuse the term with superluminal interactions. However, many physicists seem to take the term more literally. I endeavor to disabuse the latter of this notion by emphasizing that the correlations of Bell-type entanglement are a result of ordinary quantum superposition with no need to introduce nonlocality. The conclusion of the EPR paper wasn't that quantum mechanics is nonlocal but rather that it is an incomplete description of reality. For different reasons, many physicists, including me, agree with Einstein that quantum mechanics is necessarily an incomplete description of reality.
Several decades of theory and experiment into EPR correlations have led to the widely held belief that reality is non-local, in spite of the fact that this violates special relativity. To date, no experiment has shown a violation of special relativity, and EPR experiments do not demonstrate the existence of superluminal information exchange, merely correlations which violate certain inequalities. Every “loophole” in these hidden variable theories has been thought plugged. However, there is much confusion in the literature due to conflation of the terms ‘locality”, “realism”, “hidden variables”, “non-contextuality”. The presence of local hidden variables is thought to necessarily lead to a Kolmogorov probability structure (hence non-contextuality), but this is an assumption, one which is not true in general once context effects are taken into account. Treated as an observational theory, several authors have shown no incompatibility between quantum mechanics and locality, and that the Bell scenario is actually about whether reality is contextual. This paper proposes a descriptive theory by assuming a generated reality (following Whitehead’s Process Theory) which can violate the principle of continuity and possess non-Kolmogorov probability structure, and reproduce the results of non-relativistic quantum mechanics, while allowing only causally local information exchange, without hidden variables. A generated reality is thus compatible with both quantum mechanics and special relativity, reproducing all of the results expected from quantum mechanics while still maintaining causally local realism. This process model thus appears to be an ideal candidate for developing theories for the unification of quantum mechanics and general relativity.