A locality property expressing the idea that causal influences can propagate only forward in time, from earlier cause to later effect, and no faster than light is shown to be mathematically incompatible with certain predictions of quantum theory. The contradiction is proved without invoking any additional assumptions such as realism or hidden variables that contravene conventional quantum thinking. The failure of this locality property refines ideas about the theory of relativity, and opens the way to an objective interpretation of quantum theory that may expand its domain of applicability outside the one circumscribed by the orthodox Copenhagen interpretation.
A locality property expressing the idea that causal influences can propagate only forward in time, from earlier cause to later effect, and no faster than light is shown to be mathematically incompatible with certain predictions of quantum theory. The contradiction is proved without invoking any additional assumptions such as realism or hidden variables that contravene conventional quantum thinking. The failure of this locality property refines ideas about the theory of relativity, and opens the way to an objective interpretation of quantum theory that may expand its domain of applicability outside the one circumscribed by the orthodox Copenhagen interpretation.
Experiments motivated by Bell's theorem have led some physicists to conclude that quantum theory is nonlocal. However, the theoretical basis for such claims is usually taken to be Bell's Theorem, which shows only that if certain predictions of quantum theory are correct, and a strong hidden-variable assumption is valid, then a certain locality condition must fail. This locality condition expresses the idea that what an experimenter freely chooses to measure in one spacetime region can have no effect of any kind in a second region situated spacelike relative to the first. The experimental results conform closely to the predictions of quantum theory in such cases, but the most reasonable conclusion to draw is not that locality fails, but rather that the hidden-variable assumption is false. For this assumption conflicts with the quantum precept that unperformed experiments have no outcomes. The present paper deduces the failure of this locality condition directly from the precepts of quantum theory themselves, in a way that generates no inconsistency or any conflict with the predictions of relativistic quantum field theory.
It is shown that no theory that satisfies certain premises can exclude faster-than-light influences. The premises include neither the existence of hidden variables nor counterfactual definiteness, nor any premise that effectively entails the general existence of outcomes of unperformed local measurements. All the premises are compatible with Copenhagen philosophy and the principles and predictions of relativistic quantum field theory. The present proof is contrasted with an earlier one with the same objective.
Explaining observations in terms of cause-and-effect (causal) relations is central to empirical science. However, in his seminal 1964 work [1], John Bell showed that the correlations between entangled quantum systems cannot be explained in terms of, possibly hidden, cause and effect relations. After four decades of experimental effort, Bell's prediction has recently been confirmed in an unambiguous way by a series of loophole-free Bell-test experiments [2-4]. These experiments, however, cannot reveal where exactly quantum mechanics breaks with our classical notion of cause and effect. Specifically, Bell's theorem is based on the central assumptions of realism and local causality. Realism posits that physical systems have real, objective properties, independent of whether we observe them or not, and local causality assumes that causal influences cannot propagate faster than the speed of light.
Introduction Important advances in scientific knowledge may, not infrequently, be looked at from several angles. Here, in investigating the question the article title defines, part of our attention will have to be turned on the relationships of Bell's theorem to the old, but still not fully cleared up, question of the nature of causality. The word “nonlocality” means the violation of local causality, the initial meaning of whichwas that no influence, that is, no causal action , can be propagated faster than light. For a long time it was a received view that actions somewhat akin to the basically time-directed ones that living beings perform also take place within inanimate nature. This conception of causality may be called the causality–action theory . But later, having in view Hume's serious reservations concerning it, renowned philosophers of science claimed it might and should be dropped, since the effects it was meant to account for could be explained just as well by considering that what is at work is simply a conjunction of physical laws expressed by means of differential equations – a view that later Hempel and Oppenheim generalized and called the D-N (deductive–nomological) model of explanation (reprinted in [1]). Here the (widely accepted, as it seems) corresponding conception of causality will, for simplicity, be called the law-centered theory of causality . But does the latter theory subsume, at least within physics, all the meanings of the word ‘cause’ that true understanding calls for? Among philosophers the matter is not settled. Hempel himself granted that in several respects the D-N model is somehow inadequate for analyzing the cause–effect relationship [2]. And it seems indeed that a significant argument favoring a ‘no’ answer to the question might have been put forward as early as 1907 (although, to our knowledge, it was not), when Einstein pointed out that according to his then two years old special relativity (SR) theory, if we assumed an effect could follow its cause sooner than light velocity permits, then in some other frames of reference it would occur before its cause. For, concerning this consequence of the assumption, he wrote, “in my opinion, regarded as pure logic … it contains no contradiction; however it absolutely clashes with the character of our total experience, and in this way is proved the impossibility of the hypothesis” [3].
Robert Griffiths has recently addressed, within the framework of a ‘consistent quantum theory’ (CQT) that he has developed, the issue of whether, as is often claimed, quantum mechanics entails a need for faster-than-light transfers of information over long distances. He argues, on the basis of his examination of certain arguments that claim to demonstrate the existence of such nonlocal influences, that such influences do not exist. However, his examination was restricted mainly to hidden-variable-based arguments that include in their premises some essentially classical-physics-type assumptions that are fundamentally incompatible with the precepts of quantum physics. One cannot logically prove properties of a system by attributing to the system properties alien to that system. Hence Griffiths’ rejection of hidden-variable-based proofs is logically warranted. Griffiths mentions the existence of a certain alternative proof that does not involve hidden variables, and that uses only macroscopically described observable properties. He notes that he had examined in his book proofs of this general kind, and concluded that they provide no evidence for nonlocal influences. But he did not examine the particular proof that he cites. An examination of that particular proof by the method specified by his ‘consistent quantum theory’ shows that the cited proof is valid within that restrictive framework. This necessary existence, within the ‘consistent’ framework, of long range essentially instantaneous influences refutes the claim made by Griffiths that his ‘consistent’ framework is superior to the orthodox quantum theory of von Neumann because it does not entail instantaneous influences. An added section responds to Griffiths’ reply, which cites a litany of ambiguities that seem to restrict, devastatingly, the scope of his CQT formalism, apparently to buttress his claim that my use of that formalism to validate the nonlocality theorem is flawed. But the vagaries that he cites do not upset the proof in question. It is show here in detail why the precise statement of this theorem justifies the specified application of CQT. It is also shown, in response to his challenge, why a putative proof of locality that he has proposed is not valid.
Robert Griffiths has recently addressed, within the framework of a ‘consistent quantum theory’ (CQT) that he has developed, the issue of whether, as is often claimed, quantum mechanics entails a need for faster-than-light transfers of information over long distances. He argues, on the basis of his examination of certain arguments that claim to demonstrate the existence of such nonlocal influences, that such influences do not exist. However, his examination was restricted mainly to hidden-variable-based arguments that include in their premises some essentially classical-physics-type assumptions that are fundamentally incompatible with the precepts of quantum physics. One cannot logically prove properties of a system by attributing to the system properties alien to that system. Hence Griffiths’ rejection of hidden-variable-based proofs is logically warranted. Griffiths mentions the existence of a certain alternative proof that does not involve hidden variables, and that uses only macroscopically described observable properties. He notes that he had examined in his book proofs of this general kind, and concluded that they provide no evidence for nonlocal influences. But he did not examine the particular proof that he cites. An examination of that particular proof by the method specified by his ‘consistent quantum theory’ shows that the cited proof is valid within that restrictive framework. This necessary existence, within the ‘consistent’ framework, of long range essentially instantaneous influences refutes the claim made by Griffiths that his ‘consistent’ framework is superior to the orthodox quantum theory of von Neumann because it does not entail instantaneous influences. An added section responds to Griffiths’ reply, which cites a litany of ambiguities that seem to restrict, devastatingly, the scope of his CQT formalism, apparently to buttress his claim that my use of that formalism to validate the nonlocality theorem is flawed. But the vagaries that he cites do not upset the proof in question. It is show here in detail why the precise statement of this theorem justifies the specified application of CQT. It is also shown, in response to his challenge, why a putative proof of locality that he has proposed is not valid.