Many scientists believe that quantum nonlocality revealed in the experiments with entangled states (EPR atom pairs) does not contradict special theory of relativity. Nevertheless, a simple mental experiment shows that it does. It has been proved that the contradictions to special theory of relativity can be resolved in the context of the many-worlds interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics, which is an argument for Everett's hypothesis. Therefore, a recent claim [1] that the selection of a quantum state can be equated to perception was criticized.
Many scientists believe that quantum nonlocality revealed in the experiments with entangled states (EPR atom pairs) does not contradict special theory of relativity. Nevertheless, a simple mental experiment shows that it does. It has been proved that the contradictions to special theory of relativity can be resolved in the context of the many-worlds interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics, which is an argument for Everett's hypothesis. Therefore, a recent claim [1] that the selection of a quantum state can be equated to perception was criticized.
Quantum nonlocality is shown to be an artifact of the Copenhagen interpretation, in which each observed quantity has exactly one value at any instant. In reality, all physical systems obey quantum mechanics, which obeys no such rule. Locality is restored if observed and observer are both assumed to obey quantum mechanics, as in the many-worlds interpretation (MWI). Using the MWI, I show that the quantum side of Bell's inequality, generally believed nonlocal, is really due to a series of three measurements (not two as in the standard, oversimplified analysis), all three of which have only local effects. Thus, experiments confirming "nonlocality" are actually confirming the MWI. The mistaken interpretation of nonlocality experiments depends crucially on a question-begging version of the Born interpretation, which makes sense only in "collapse" versions of quantum theory, about the meaning of the modulus of the wave function, so I use the interpretation based on the MWI, namely that the wave function is a world density amplitude, not a probability amplitude. This view allows the Born interpretation to be derived directly from the Schrödinger equation, by applying the Schrödinger equation to both the observed and the observer.
A.Einstein and others,who demonstrated by EPR proof revealed inherent quantum mechanics allow Superluminal exist—which is contradiction with the theory of relativity,as opposed to N.Bohr explanation which is the representative of the Copenhagen School that is quantum mechanics comprehensive.But for several years,after a series of test around Bell's inequality experiments show that microscopic particles do exist Superluminal related phenomena,which leads to the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics incompatible.On the debate on the issue and later inspired a generation of scientists,philosophers,encouraging them to the physical concept of the past for deep thinking,it also reflects the development of science is a relative truth to the absolute truth process.
The aim of this volume is to develop and evaluate the suggestion that if one adopts the interpretation of quantum mechanics initially proposed by Hugh Everett, today frequently referred to as the “many-worlds interpretation,” then one can avoid the kind of nonlocality that is often thought to be a consequence of quantum entanglement according to other approaches, and thus permit the compatibility of these two pillars of modern physics: quantum mechanics and special relativity. Although this is an idea that seems to have been recognized by Everett and is sometimes touted as a reason to prefer his approach to interpreting quantum mechanics over others, the precise way in which Everett’s interpretation achieves this locality, indeed whether it even does achieve locality, has been debated, including among the interpretation’s proponents. The aim of this introductory chapter is to provide readers with a background of this debate concerning the locality of Everettian quantum mechanics. We begin with a brief historical introduction to Everett’s proposed interpretation of quantum mechanics and its later development into the many-worlds interpretation. The following section discusses how the by now well-established phenomenon of quantum entanglement seems to imply what Albert Einstein, in a 1947 letter to Max Born, called “spooky action at a distance,” and a tension with special relativity. We then discuss why one might think that the many-worlds interpretation allows one to avoid nonlocality in this sense. The next sections bring the reader up to date with how the locality of Everettian quantum mechanics has been debated both by critics and proponents of the interpretation. As we will see, the desire to understand Everettian quantum mechanics as an interpretation that avoids nonlocality has opened up some interesting debates concerning both what it means to say an interpretation of quantum mechanics is local and over the metaphysical and mathematical interpretation of Everettian quantum mechanics itself. This introductory chapter concludes with a summary of the contributions to the present volume in the context of this ongoing debate.
This article presents a general discussion of several aspects of our present understanding of quantum mechanics. The emphasis is put on the very special correlations that this theory makes possible: They are forbidden by very general arguments based on realism and local causality. In fact, these correlations are completely impossible in any circumstance, except for very special situations designed by physicists especially to observe these purely quantum effects. Another general point that is emphasized is the necessity for the theory to predict the emergence of a single result in a single realization of an experiment. For this purpose, orthodox quantum mechanics introduces a special postulate: the reduction of the state vector, which comes in addition to the Schrödinger evolution postulate. Nevertheless, the presence in parallel of two evolution processes of the same object (the state vector) may be a potential source for conflicts; various attitudes that are possible to avoid this problem are discussed in this text. After a brief historical introduction, recalling how the very special status of the state vector has emerged in quantum mechanics, various conceptual difficulties are introduced and discussed. The Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (EPR) theorem is presented with the help of a botanical parable, in a way that emphasizes how deeply the EPR reasoning is rooted into what is often called “scientific method.” In another section the Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger argument, the Hardy impossibilities, as well as the Bell–Kochen–Specker theorem are introduced in simple terms. The final two sections attempt to give a summary of the present situation: One section discusses nonlocality and entanglement as we see it presently, with brief mention of recent experiments; the last section contains a (nonexhaustive) list of various attitudes that are found among physicists, and that are helpful to alleviate the conceptual difficulties of quantum mechanics.
We argue that quantum nonlocality of entangled states is not an actual phenomenon. It appears in quantum mechanics as a consequence of the inconsistency of its superposition principle with the corpuscular properties of a quantum particle. In the existing form, this principle does not distinguish between macroscopically distinct states of a particle and their superpositions: it implies introducing observables for a particle, even if it is in an entangled state. However, a particle cannot take part simultaneously in two or more alternative macroscopically distinct sub-processes. Thus, calculating the expectation values of the one-particle's observables, for entangled states, is physically meaningless: Born's formula is not applicable to such states. The same concerns the entangled states of compound quantum systems. In the {\it existing} quantum mechanics, introducing Bell's inequalities is fully legal. However, these inequalities imply averaging over an entangled state, and, hence, they have no basis for their clear physical interpretation. Experiments to confirm the violation of Bell's inequalities do not prove the existence of nonlocality in microcosm. They confirm only that correlations introduced in the existing theory of entangled states have no physical sense, for they contradict special relativity.