In the interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, there were four major mistakes done at different levels: (1)A misinterpretation of Bell’s theorem in which the original intent did not include non-locality, but as a test to see whether or not a particle has a certain property that can be measured. (2)A misinterpretation of the disagreement between Einstein and Bohr. Einstein’s objection to the collapse of the wave function implied a spooky action at a distance, while Bohr insisted on the instantaneous collapse of the wave function which he mistook to be a real wave. (3)A misinterpretation that the wave function represents a real wave when in actuality it represents the possible states of a quantum system before a measurement. (4)When Bell’s theorem was violated by a quantum system, those violations were misinterpreted as evidence of an instantaneous collapse of the wave function and non-locality. We will argue: there is no collapse of the wave function. Bell’s theorem is not about non-locality. There is no spooky action at a distance. And Quantum Mechanics is about measuring quantities at the microscopic scales and in doing so, these quantities are altered. So what we get is partial knowledge. But in spite of that obstacle, we still get a theory of reality with considerable success.
In the interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, there were four major mistakes done at different levels: (1)A misinterpretation of Bell’s theorem in which the original intent did not include non-locality, but as a test to see whether or not a particle has a certain property that can be measured. (2)A misinterpretation of the disagreement between Einstein and Bohr. Einstein’s objection to the collapse of the wave function implied a spooky action at a distance, while Bohr insisted on the instantaneous collapse of the wave function which he mistook to be a real wave. (3)A misinterpretation that the wave function represents a real wave when in actuality it represents the possible states of a quantum system before a measurement. (4)When Bell’s theorem was violated by a quantum system, those violations were misinterpreted as evidence of an instantaneous collapse of the wave function and non-locality. We will argue: there is no collapse of the wave function. Bell’s theorem is not about non-locality. There is no spooky action at a distance. And Quantum Mechanics is about measuring quantities at the microscopic scales and in doing so, these quantities are altered. So what we get is partial knowledge. But in spite of that obstacle, we still get a theory of reality with considerable success.
Einstein became bothered by quantum mechanical action at a distance within two years of Schrödinger's introduction of his eponymous wave equation. If the wave function represents the "real" physical state of a particle, then the measurement of the particle's position would result in the instantaneous collapse of the wave function to the single, measured position. Such a process seemingly violates not only the Schrödinger equation but also special relativity. Einstein was not alone in this vexation; however, the dilemma eventually faded as physicists concentrated on using the Schrödinger equation to solve a plethora of pressing problems. For the next 30 years, wave function collapse, while occasionally discussed by physicists, was primarily a topic of interest for philosophers. That is, until 1964, when Bell introduced his famous inequality and maintained that its violation proved that quantum mechanics and, by implication, nature herself are nonlocal. Unfortunately, this brought the topic back to mainstream physics, where it has remained and continues to muddy the waters. To be sure, not all physicists are bothered by the apparent nonlocality of quantum mechanics. So where have those who embrace quantum nonlocality gone wrong? I argue that the answer is a gratuitous belief in the ontic nature of the quantum state.
Abstract If we reject the ‘spooky’ action at a distance that seems to be required in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory, and which is highlighted by the EPR thought experiment, we must accept the EPR argument that the theory is somehow incomplete. In essence, this involves the rejection of the first postulate of quantum theory: the state of a quantum mechanical system is not completely described by the wave function or state vector.Einstein had hinted at a statistical interpretation. In his opinion, the squares of the wave functions or state vectors of quantum theory represented statistical probabilities obtained by averaging over a large number of real particles. The Copenhagen interpretation of the EPR experiment insists that the reality of the physical states that can be measured is defined by the nature of the interaction between two quantum particles and the nature of the experimental arrangement. A completely deterministic, locally real version of quantum theory demands that the physical states of the particles be established at the moment of their interaction and that the particles separate as individually real entities in those physical states. The physical states of the particles are prescribed by the physics of their interaction and independent of how we choose to set up the measuring instrument, and so no reference to the nature of the latter is necessary, except to define how the independently real particles interact with it. The instrument thus probes an observer-independent reality.
According to the orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics (Bohr being its leading voice), the attributes of a physical object (position, momentum, spin, etc.) can be assigned only when they have been measured. Einstein advocated the local realist viewpoint that an object had definite attributes whether they had been measured or not. The Copenhagen school view that measurement actually produces an object’s property would imply that the measurement of one part of an entangled quantum state can instantaneously fix the value of another part, no matter how far the two parts have been separated. Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen devised a thought experiment to shine a light on this “spooky action-at-a-distance” feature; its discussion and debate have illuminated the meaning of quantum mechanics (QM). It led later to Bell’s theorem showing that these seemingly philosophical questions can lead to observable results. The experimental vindication of the orthodox theory has sharpened our appreciation of the nonlocal features of quantum mechanics. Nevertheless, the counter-intuitive QM picture of objective reality still troubles many, leaving one to wonder whether quantum mechanics is ultimately a complete theory.
In the Einstein-Bohr debate, Einstein considered quantum mechanics incomplete and disagreed with Born's probabilistic interpretation of wave-functions, which collapse abruptly once measurements are performed on the corresponding microscopic objects. Inspired by Einstein, Bell and his followers intended to complete quantum mechanics within the framework of local realism. Regrettably, the deterministic correlation between distant components of a separable system in Einstein's local-realist description of the world is mistaken for the so-called non-locality or "nonlocal-interaction" in the world described by Bell's theorem, which leads to the questionable interpretation of the experimental results obtained by testing Bell inequalities. This article introduces a new principle, the general principle of measurements, which is proved as a mathematical theorem and allows quantum mechanics to be completed within the framework of local realism while keeping the formal axiomatic definition of a general Hilbert space essentially unchanged. Using disjunction ("or") as the logical relation between orthonormal vectors spanning a given Hilbert space, the completed quantum theory precludes inexplicable collapses of wave-functions and is intuitively comprehensible, thus alleviating much difficulty in understanding quantum mechanics. Among various world views, Einstein's local-realist world view is correct.
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.
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.