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.’
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.’
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.
I present the background of the Bohm approach that led John Bell to a study of quantum nonlocality, from which his famous inequalities emerged. I recall the early experiments done at Birkbeck with the aim of exploring the possibility of ‘spontaneous collapse’, a way suggested by Schrödinger to avoid the conclusion that quantum mechanics is grossly nonlocal. I also review some of the work that John did which directly impinged on my own investigations into the foundations of quantum mechanics and report some new investigations towards a more fundamental theory. Introduction My first encounter with quantum nonlocality was in discussions with David Bohm when I joined him as an assistant lecturer at Birkbeck in the sixties. Although my PhD thesis had been in condensed matter physics under the supervision of Cyril Domb, I had always been fascinated and puzzled by quantum phenomena, and when the opportunity to study the subject with Bohm came up, I took it. I would listen to the discussions between Bohm and Roger Penrose, who was at Birkbeck at the time, and it soon became clear that the prescribed interpretation of quantum mechanics that I was taught as an undergraduate left too many questions unanswered. At that time there was a very strange atmosphere in the physics community. I was often informed that there were no problems with the interpretation of the quantum formalism. If I did not follow the well-prescribed rules of the quantum algorithm, I would be ‘wasting my time’. There was no alternative, just do it! But Louis de Broglie and David Bohm had shown there was another way. However, their views were strongly opposed by many, and as far as I could judge their reasons did not seem to be based on mathematics or on logic, but on a preconceived notion that the formalism was, in principle, the best we could do. The experimental data were bizarre when looked upon from the standpoint of classical physics, but the uncertainty principle somehow prevented us from examining the actual process in detail. Reality was somehow veiled (see [1]).Were we condemned to use a mere algorithm or was there an underlying ontology?
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.
On the 50th anniversary of Bell's monumental 1964 paper, there is still widespread misunderstanding about exactly what Bell proved. This misunderstanding derives in turn from a failure to appreciate the earlier argument of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen. I retrace the history and logical structure of these arguments in order to clarify the proper conclusion, namely that any world that displays violations of Bell's inequality for experiments done far from one another must be non-local. Since the world we happen to live in displays such violations, actual physics is non-local. This article is part of a special issue of Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical devoted to '50 years of Bell's theorem'.
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].
The rapid rise of quantum information For the last four chapters I have been describing what may be called the ‘fundamental’ or ‘foundational’ aspects of quantum theory. I have been explaining what happens when you penetrate deeper into the ideas of quantum theory than when you merely make use of it, when you try to understand its basic meaning and what, if true, it tells us about the physical nature of the Universe. As I said in Chapter 5, once Bohr had given his approach to these matters in his Como paper of 1927, general opinion was that his views were sacrosanct, and that no self-respecting physicist needed to return to discuss them further. It was Bell's great achievement to dent this complacency at least a little, and from the very end of the 1960s for the next quarter of a century or so, there were a few experimentalists keen to test the Bell inequalities with increasing stringency, and a few theoreticians with fresh ideas about how quantum theory should be interpreted. While it was generally admitted that Bell's work was a genuine and important contribution to our understanding of quantum theory, and eventually the ideas actually reached some of the textbooks, in the 1970s and 1980s the field was still very much a minority interest, and even those who found it interesting would scarcely have felt that it had, or was likely to have in the foreseeable future, practical application.