It is a pleasure to contribute to this anthology some of my recollections of John Bell. I first met him at SLAC, where we were visitors during 1964–5 when he was on leave from CERN, and I was on leave from the Columbia University Physics Department. Soon I found that we had a common interest in the foundations of quantum mechanics, and we had lively discussions on this subject. We were concerned with the “reduction of the wave packet” after an experiment in quantum mechanics was completed, and wrote a tongue-incheek article on this subject for a festschrift in honor of Viki Weisskopf [1], stating that We emphasize not only that our view is that of a minority but also that current interest in such questions is small. The typical physicist feels that they have long been answered, and that he will fully understand just how, if ever he can spare twenty minutes to think about it. Now, 50 years later, this topic, known as the measurement problem , has become the source of numerous articles representing many different viewpoints. At the time, however, I confess that I did not realize that the main flaw in John von Neumann's presentation of this problem was his assumption that a measuring device can be represented by a pointer with only two quantum states. Actually, a measuring device must be able to record the outcome of an experiment, and for this purpose it has to have an enormous number of quantum states, leading to an irreversible macroscopic transition in the device. A correct discussion of the measurement problemwas given, for example, by Nico vanKampen [2], but recently he told me that he was unable to persuade Bell, who continued to be concerned about this problem for the rest of his life. Indeed, shortly before he died, he wrote a diatribe [3] entitled “Against Measurement,” where he continued to argue that this problem constituted a fundamental flaw in quantum mechanics. Kurt Gottfried, who referred to this problem as Bell's second major theme, called his article “a fervent jeremiad summarizing a lifetime of reflection on what he saw as the fatal flaws of the orthodox theory” [4].
It is a pleasure to contribute to this anthology some of my recollections of John Bell. I first met him at SLAC, where we were visitors during 1964–5 when he was on leave from CERN, and I was on leave from the Columbia University Physics Department. Soon I found that we had a common interest in the foundations of quantum mechanics, and we had lively discussions on this subject. We were concerned with the “reduction of the wave packet” after an experiment in quantum mechanics was completed, and wrote a tongue-incheek article on this subject for a festschrift in honor of Viki Weisskopf [1], stating that We emphasize not only that our view is that of a minority but also that current interest in such questions is small. The typical physicist feels that they have long been answered, and that he will fully understand just how, if ever he can spare twenty minutes to think about it. Now, 50 years later, this topic, known as the measurement problem , has become the source of numerous articles representing many different viewpoints. At the time, however, I confess that I did not realize that the main flaw in John von Neumann's presentation of this problem was his assumption that a measuring device can be represented by a pointer with only two quantum states. Actually, a measuring device must be able to record the outcome of an experiment, and for this purpose it has to have an enormous number of quantum states, leading to an irreversible macroscopic transition in the device. A correct discussion of the measurement problemwas given, for example, by Nico vanKampen [2], but recently he told me that he was unable to persuade Bell, who continued to be concerned about this problem for the rest of his life. Indeed, shortly before he died, he wrote a diatribe [3] entitled “Against Measurement,” where he continued to argue that this problem constituted a fundamental flaw in quantum mechanics. Kurt Gottfried, who referred to this problem as Bell's second major theme, called his article “a fervent jeremiad summarizing a lifetime of reflection on what he saw as the fatal flaws of the orthodox theory” [4].
Introduction This contribution to the book in honour of J. S. Bell will probably differ from the remaining ones, in particular since only a part of it will be devoted to specific technical arguments. In fact I have considered it appropriate to share with the community of physicists interested in the foundational problems of our best theory the repeated interactions I had with him in the last four years of his life, the deep discussions in which we have been involved in particular in connection with the elaboration of collapse theories and their interpretation, and the contributions he gave to the development of this approach at a formal level, as well as championing it on repeated occasions. In brief, I intend to play here the role of one of those lucky persons who became acquainted with him personally, who has exchanged important views with him, who has learned a lot from his deep insight and conceptual lucidity, and, last but not least, whose scientific work has been appreciated by him. Moreover, due to the fact that this book intends to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the derivation of the fundamental inequality which bears his name, I will also devote a small part of the text to recalling his clearcut views about the locality issue, views that I believe have not been grasped correctly by a remarkable part of the scientific community. I will analyze this problem in quite general terms at the end of the paper. Some of Bell's Scientific Achievements Bell received bachelor's degrees in experimental physics and in mathematical physics at Queen'sUniversity of Belfast in the years 1948 and 1949, respectively, and a PhD in physics at the University of Birmingham. We all know very well that already at that time he was absolutely unsatisfied with the conceptual structure of quantum mechanics and with the way in which it was taught. This is significantly expressed by the statement he made during an interview to Jeremy Bernstein: I remember arguing with one of my professors, a Doctor Sloane, about that. I was getting very heated and accusing him, more or less, of dishonesty. He was getting very heated too and said, ‘You're going too far.’
Combining twenty-six original essays written by an impressive line-up of distinguished physicists and philosophers of physics, this anthology reflects some of the latest thoughts by leading experts on the influence of Bell's theorem on quantum physics. Essays progress from John Bell's character and background, through studies of his main work, and on to more speculative ideas, addressing the controversies surrounding the theorem, and investigating the theorem's meaning and its deep implications for the nature of physical reality. Combined, they present a powerful comment on the undeniable significance of Bell's theorem for the development of ideas in quantum physics over the past 50 years. Questions surrounding the assumptions and significance of Bell's work still inspire discussion in the field of quantum physics. Adding to this with a theoretical and philosophical perspective, this balanced anthology is an indispensable volume for students and researchers interested in the philosophy of physics and the foundations of quantum mechanics.
This contribution to the book in honour of J.S. Bell will probably differ from the remaining ones, in particular since only a part of it will be devoted to specific technical arguments. In fact I have considered appropriate to share with the community of physicists interested in the foundational problems of our best theory the repeated interactions I had with him in the last four years of his life, the deep discussions in which we have been involved in particular in connection with the elaboration of collapse theories and their interpretation, the contributions he gave to the development of this approach, both at a formal level, as well as championing it on repeated occasions. In brief, I intend to play here the role of one of those lucky persons who became acquainted with him personally, who has exchanged important views with him, who has learned a lot from his deep insight and conceptual lucidity, and, last but not least, one whose scientific work has been appreciated by him. Moreover, due to the fact that this book intends to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the derivation of the fundamental inequality which bears his name, I will also devote a small part of the text to recall his clear cut views about the locality issue, views that I believe have not been grasped correctly by a remarkable part of the scientific community. I will analyze this problem in quite general terms at the end of the paper.
Prologue A memorial conference for John Bell, open to the public, was held at Rutgers University around 20 years ago. I gave a short talk there on Bell's views about David Bohm's “hidden variables” formulation of quantum mechanics, a version of quantum mechanics often called the de Broglie–Bohm theory or Bohmian mechanics. This theory was in fact discovered by Louis de Broglie in 1927. In 1952, it was rediscovered and developed by Bohm, who was the first to appreciate its connection to the predictions of standard quantum mechanics. I did not publish the talk. I have decided that it would be appropriate to publish a very lightly edited version of it here, in this volume devoted to the work of Bell on the foundation of quantum mechanics. One reason for doing so is that the connection between Bell and Bohm continues to be somewhat underplayed, with the strength of his advocacy of Bohmian mechanics not properly appreciated. For example, about half of the papers in Bell's collected works on the foundations of quantum mechanics deal with Bohmian mechanics. But in his fine introduction to the revised edition of this great book [1], Alain Aspect mentions this theory in only a single sentence, and parenthetically at that. For several decades after Bell proved his nonlocality theorem, based in part on Bell's inequality, it was widely claimed that Bell had shown that hidden variables – and Bohmian mechanics in particular – were impossible, that they were incompatible with the predictions of quantum mechanics. For example, the great physicist Eugene Wigner, who, unlike most of his contemporaries, was profoundly concerned with the conceptual foundations of quantum mechanics and usually wrote on the subject with great clarity and insight, has written that This [hidden variables] is an interesting idea and even though few of us were ready to accept it, it must be admitted that the truly telling argument against it was produced as late as 1965, by J. S. Bell … This appears to give a convincing argument against the hidden variables theory.
Everett and relative states In this chapter I shall discuss briefly a number of the interesting developments – interpretational, theoretical, experimental – that have taken place in the foundations of quantum theory over the last few decades, where appropriate relating them to the work of Bohr or Einstein. While the topics considered will range well beyond the specific areas studied by John Bell, I think it is fair to say that it was the interest stimulated by his ideas that led to nearly all the work described. This could not, though, apply to the very first ideas I discuss, which date from as early as 1957, when a PhD student at Princeton University, Hugh Everett, wrote a thesis titled The Theory of the Universal Wave Function [231]. A short version of this was published [232], and it was followed by a brief positive assessment [233] of Everett's ideas by John Wheeler, who had guided and encouraged him. (Sixteen years later, both of Everett's papers, and a number of related ones, were collected in a single volume [234].) I shall now sketch his ideas. Till now, we have allowed wave-functions for microscopic systems, such as atoms or electrons, to be sums of wave-functions for highly distinct states, so that the corresponding properties of the systems – position, momentum and so on – do not usually have precise values, at least not till a measurement is made.