In this article we give an introduction to non-locality in quantum mechanics. A simple summary of the basic quantum mechanics required is given. Then we present Bell's proof of quantum non-locality and also we give simple presentations of more recent proofs. Finally we consider the difficulties faced by experimentalists in testing quantum non-locality and review some of the many experiments that have been performed.
In this article we give an introduction to non-locality in quantum mechanics. A simple summary of the basic quantum mechanics required is given. Then we present Bell's proof of quantum non-locality and also we give simple presentations of more recent proofs. Finally we consider the difficulties faced by experimentalists in testing quantum non-locality and review some of the many experiments that have been performed.
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.
We analyze foundational consequences of recently announced loophole free tests of violation of Bell's inequality. We consider two interpretations of these remarkable experiments. By the conventional one Einstein was wrong and Bohr was right, there is spooky action at a distance, quantum realism is incompatible with locality. However, we show that it is still possible to treat quantum mechanics without appealing to nonlocality or denying realism. We hope that this note will attract attention of the experts in quantum foundations and convince them to come with their own comments on the final Bell's test.
Quantum entanglement is popularly believed to give rise to spooky action at a distance of a kind that Einstein decisively rejected. Indeed, important recent experiments on systems assigned entangled states have been claimed to refute Einstein by exhibiting such spooky action. After reviewing two considerations in favor of this view I argue that quantum theory can be used to explain puzzling correlations correctly predicted by assignment of entangled quantum states with no such instantaneous action at a distance. We owe both considerations in favor of the view to arguments of John Bell. I present simplified forms of these arguments as well as a game that provides insight into the situation. The argument I give in response turns on a prescriptive view of quantum states that differs both from Dirac’s (as stated in Chapter 2) and Einstein’s.
We analyze foundational consequences of recently reported loophole free tests of violation of Bell's inequality. We consider two interpretations of these remarkable experiments. The conventional one is “Einstein was wrong and Bohr was right, there is spooky action at a distance, quantum realism is incompatible with locality.” However, in line with discussions in literature during last decade, we show that it is still possible to treat quantum mechanics without appealing to nonlocality or denying realism. We hope that this note will call the attention of experts in quantum foundations and convince them that the case is not closed, so that they should come with their own comments on the status of the final Bell test.
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 remarkable quantum phenomenon of 'non-locality' discovered by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) is the centre of considerable experimental and theoretical activity these days. Nevertheless, many (perhaps most) physicists do not feel the phenomenon is especially paradoxical, or even worthy of interest. This article attempts to reveal, in a simple way, just where the fascination of the EPR paradox lies, and to answer some of the arguments invoked by critics to 'explain away' the paradox.