Journal of Physics Conference Series

Is a Deterministic and Local Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics Possible?… First Steps

Eduardo Nahmad-Achar, Natalia Sánchez-Kuntz

Published Apr 1, 2020• 0 citations

Abstract

Abstract Quantum states in superposition cannot be observed, suggesting that they merely embody information on possible measurement results. Yet, we think of them as describing physical systems that evolve in time according to given mathematical equations. Furthermore, evolution takes place in physical space-time, and local causality is imposed on space-time by Special Relativity (a sequence of cause and effect that constitutes a fundamental principle by which we think about and do scientific work). It is therefore strange that there is non–locality and violation of causality embedded in Quantum Mechanics. We try to give here a first step to see whether a deterministic and local interpretation is possible. We will show that Bell’s inequality is not conclusive about the non–local nature of Quantum Mechanics, in that there exists an interpretation of reality (which we put forward) which is local and in which Bell’s inequality cannot be derived. Assuming determinism and locality a new Bell-like inequality is derived, which is always satisfied by Quantum Mechanics and which allows for local hidden variables [1].

DOI: 10.1088/1742-6596/1540/1/012006

Related papers

The fail of determinism and the limits of Bohm hidden variable theory

Ramón Lapiedra

We give a counter example to show that determinism as such is in contradiction to quantum mechanics. More precisely, we consider a simple quantum system and its environment, including the measurement device, and make the assumption that the time evolution of the global system, the quantum system plus this environment, is deterministic, i. e., the time evolution is given by a dynamical trajectory from some initial conditions. From this, we prove a type of Bell inequalities which are violated by quantum mechanics, reaching the conclusion that our quantum system evolves in a non deterministic way. In order to seize the interest of this conclusion, one must realize that it cannot be reached from the present experimental violation of Bell inequalities predicted by quantum mechanics, since this violation is compatible with non-local realism.

arXiv:0903.4339Mar 25, 20092 citations

Quantum non-locality—it ainʼt necessarily so...

Marek Żukowski, Časlav Brukner

Bell's theorem is 50 years old. Still there is a controversy about its implications. Much of it has its roots in confusion regarding the premises from which the theorem can be derived. Some claim that a derivation of Bell's inequalities requires just locality assumption, and nothing more. Violations of the inequalities are then interpreted as ``nonlocality'' or ``quantum nonlocality''. We show that such claims are unfounded and that every derivation of Bell's inequalities requires a premise -- in addition to locality and freedom of choice -- which is either assumed tacitly, or unconsciously, or is embedded in a single compound condition (like Bell's ``local causality''). The premise is equivalent to the assumption of existence of additional variables which do not appear in the quantum formalism (in form of determinism, or joint probability for outcomes of all conceivable measurements, or ``additional causes`'', or ``hidden variables'', ``complete description of the state'' or counterfactual definiteness, etc.). A certain irony is that perhaps the main message of violation of Bell's inequalities is that our notion of locality should be based on an operationally well-defined no-signalling condition, rather than on local causality.

arXiv:1501.04618Journal of Physics A Mathematical and TheoreticalOct 9, 2014100 citations

A study of deterministic models for quantum mechanics

Roderick I. Sutherland

A theoretical investigation is made into the difficulties encountered in constructing a deterministic model for quantum mechanics and into the restrictions that can be placed on the form of such a model.The various implications of the known 11 impossi bil ity proofs II are examined.A possible explanation for the non-locality required by Bell's proof is suggested in terms of backwards-in-time causality.The efficacy of the Kochen and Specker proof is brought into doubt by showing that there is a possible way of avoiding its implications in the only known physically realizable situation to which it applies.Also, a new thought experiment is put forward to show that a particle's predetermined momentum and energy values cannot satisfy the laws of momentum and energy conservation without conflicting with the predictions of quantum mechanics.Special attention is paid to a particular class of deterministic models which appear not to have been explicitly studied before.The models considered are those for which the individual outcomes of measurements are not dependent on hidden variables associated with the measuring apparatus and for which the hidden variables of a particle do not need to be randomized after each measurement.Specific models of this type are constructed and examined for the cases of both discrete and continuous spectra of eigenvalues.In developing these models a need is found for a joint distribution for position and momentum.In relation to this point, it is demonstrated that the quantum mechanical wave equations actually point to a particular joint distribution expression, namely the Margenau and Hill distribution.The schemes considered are found to have certain shortcomings and possible steps towards more satisfactory models are suggested.

Mar 18, 20220 citations

The Empty Scope of Bell's Theorem

Horace P. Yuen

Bell inequality is violated in quantum mechanics and in experiments. Bell's theorem, on the other hand, concludes that quantum physics or nature is hence nonlocal. Bell's derivation of such a theorem comes in two versions, BT1 in which he started with determinism assumption in his 1964 original paper, and BT2 in his 1976 paper where he started with a "local causality" condition (LC). In this paper we show that (LC) does not follow from the physical concept of local causality except in the determinism limit. A local hidden variable model for the singlet pair is given that yields the correct quantum predictions for pair correlations. We also show determinism flagrantly violates quantum predictions. Thus Bell's theorem has no scope of applicability on possible hidden variable theory for quantum mechanics.

Jan 1, 20190 citations

Interpretation of the superposition principle and locality loophole in Bell experiments

Sheng Feng

A connection is revealed between the superposition principle and locality. A self consistent interpretation of the superposition principle is put forth, from which it is shown that quantum mechanics may be a local statistical theory. Then it is shown how Bell experiments can be satisfactorily explained by assuming local nature for entangled particles, i.e., the violation of Bell inequality cannot distinguish between locality and nonlocality, which is referred to as locality loophole. Moreover, existing experimental results are presented indicating locality in quantum mechanics and new experiments are proposed so that the locality loophole may be closed.

arXiv:2305.06022May 10, 20230 citations

Causality and Non-Locality in Quantum Mechanics: An argument for retrocausation

Jørn Kløvfjell Mjelva

It has been claimed that quantum mechanics is a non-local theory, i.e., that the predictions of quantum mechanics are at odds with a conception of the world where all the interactions are mediated by local mechanisms. The cited reason is the violation of the Bell inequality in cases where measurements are performed on quantum systems of particles that have interacted in the past. Quantum mechanics predicts that the state of the particles in such a system are correlated, a result obtained from considering a thought-experiment often known as EPR. In this thesis, I will argue that the violation of the Bell inequality in EPR forces us to either accept that causes sometimes act both backwards and forwards in time, or give up some widely-held assumptions about causal relations or the role of causal explanations. First, I will present three principles regarding causality that I take be widely accepted. I will then present the background for the claim the quantum mechanics is a non-local theory, and discuss the implications of non-local causal influences in light of the Special Theory of Relativity. One argument against a causal explanation of the EPR-correlations will be discussed, and different models for the causal structure of EPR will be assessed. I will argue that a retrocausal model – models that include instances of retrocausation, where the direction of causation is the opposite of the direction of time – is the only viable option if we want to uphold the three principles presented in chapter 1. I will discuss the plausibility of rejecting one of these principles, and argue that at least one of the can be restricted in a way that still accounts for our commitment to it. Finally, I will assess the non-local models against the retrocausal models, and argue that a retrocausal model offers interpretational advantages over the non-local alternatives.

Jan 1, 20170 citations