Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Entropy

Is the Devil in h?

Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

Published May 19, 2021• 23 citations
Publisher

Abstract

This note is a part of my effort to rid quantum mechanics (QM) nonlocality. Quantum nonlocality is a two faced Janus: one face is a genuine quantum mechanical nonlocality (defined by the Lüders' projection postulate). Another face is the nonlocality of the hidden variables model that was invented by Bell. This paper is devoted the deconstruction of the latter. The main casualty of Bell's model is that it straightforwardly contradicts Heisenberg's uncertainty and Bohr's complementarity principles generally. Thus, we do not criticize the derivation or interpretation of the Bell inequality (as was done by numerous authors). Our critique is directed against the model as such. The original Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) argument assumed the Heisenberg's principle without questioning its validity. Hence, the arguments of EPR and Bell differ crucially, and it is necessary to establish the physical ground of the aforementioned principles. This is the quantum postulate: the existence of an indivisible quantum of action given by the Planck constant. Bell's approach with hidden variables implicitly implies rejection of the quantum postulate, since the latter is the basis of the reference principles.

DOI
10.3390/e23050632

Related papers

Bell Model with Hidden Variables and Bohr Quantum Postulate on the Existence of Indivisible Quantum of Action Given by Planck Constant H.

Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

This note is a part of my efforts for getting rid of nonlocality from quantum mechanics (QM). Quantum nonlocality is two faced Janus, one face is apparent quantum mechanical nonlocality (assigned with projection postulate), another face is nonlocality of Bell's model with the hidden variables. This paper is directed against the latter. The main casualty of Bell's model is that it contradicts to the Heinsenberg's uncertainty and Bohr's complementarity principles. The aim of this note is to point to the physical seed of the aforementioned principles. This is the {\it quantum postulate}: the existence of indivisible quantum of action given by the Planck constant. Bell's model by contradicting to the basic principles of QM implies rejection of this postulate. Thus, it contradicts not only to the QM-formalism, but also to the fundamental feature of the quantum world that was initially discovered by Planck.

•Jul 19, 2020•0 citations

Quantum postulate vs. quantum nonlocality: on the role of the Planck constant in Bell’s argument

Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

Abstract We present a quantum mechanical (QM) analysis of Bell’s approach to quantum foundations based on his hidden-variable model. We claim and try to justify that the Bell model contradicts to the Heinsenberg’s uncertainty and Bohr’s complementarity principles. The aim of this note is to point to the physical seed of the aforementioned principles. This is the Bohr’squantum postulate: the existence of indivisible quantum of action given by the Planck constanth. By contradicting these basic principles of QM, Bell’s model implies rejection of this postulate as well. Thus, this hidden-variable model contradicts not only the QM-formalism, but also the fundamental feature of the quantum world discovered by Planck.

arXiv:2003.05718•Foundations of Physics•Feb 1, 2021•19 citations

Two Faced Janus of Quantum Nonlocality

Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

This paper is a new step towards understanding why "quantum nonlocality" is a misleading concept. Metaphorically speaking, "quantum nonlocality" is Janus faced. One face is an apparent nonlocality of the Lüders projection and another face is Bell nonlocality (a wrong conclusion that the violation of Bell type inequalities implies the existence of mysterious instantaneous influences between distant physical systems). According to the Lüders projection postulate, a quantum measurement performed on one of the two distant entangled physical systems modifies their compound quantum state instantaneously. Therefore, if the quantum state is considered to be an attribute of the individual physical system and if one assumes that experimental outcomes are produced in a perfectly random way, one quickly arrives at the contradiction. It is a primary source of speculations about a spooky action at a distance. Bell nonlocality as defined above was explained and rejected by several authors; thus, we concentrate in this paper on the apparent nonlocality of the Lüders projection. As already pointed out by Einstein, the quantum paradoxes disappear if one adopts the purely statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics (QM). In the statistical interpretation of QM, if probabilities are considered to be objective properties of random experiments we show that the Lüders projection corresponds to the passage from joint probabilities describing all set of data to some marginal conditional probabilities describing some particular subsets of data. If one adopts a subjective interpretation of probabilities, such as QBism, then the Lüders projection corresponds to standard Bayesian updating of the probabilities. The latter represents degrees of beliefs of local agents about outcomes of individual measurements which are placed or which will be placed at distant locations. In both approaches, probability-transformation does not happen in the physical space, but only in the information space. Thus, all speculations about spooky interactions or spooky predictions at a distance are simply misleading. Coming back to Bell nonlocality, we recall that in a recent paper we demonstrated, using exclusively the quantum formalism, that CHSH inequalities may be violated for some quantum states only because of the incompatibility of quantum observables and Bohr's complementarity. Finally, we explain that our criticism of quantum nonlocality is in the spirit of Hertz-Boltzmann methodology of scientific theories.

arXiv:2001.02977•Entropy•Mar 6, 2020•47 citations

Quantum Postulate as the Seed of the Complementarity Principle

Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

The hidden variable project realized by Bell contradicts the uncertaintyand complementarity principles. The inequalities derived with Bell’s hidden variablesare violated for quantum observables. Thus, Bell’s hidden variables shouldbe rejected and the validity of quantum theory is confirmed. (This foundationalachievement deserved the Nobel Prize in 2022.) This scientific loop,ignorance of the uncertainty and complementarity principles – hidden variablesmodel – Bell’s inequalities – their violation – reestablishing the validityof the uncertainty and complementarity principles, was stimulating for quantumfoundations. However, Bohr and Heisenberg might say that such resultscan be expected from the very beginning. For them, the uncertainty andcomplementarity principles form the basis of quantum physics. And theycan’t be rejected, since they are the consequences of the so-called quantum postulate– the existence of an indivisible quantum of action given by Planck’sconstant h. The quantum postulate is the ontological basis of quantum theory.I formulated its epistemic counterpart in the form of the principle ofquantum action invariance.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Nov 28, 2024•0 citations

Two Faces of Quantum Nonlocality and Two Interpretations of Quantum State

Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

This chapter is a step towards understanding why quantum nonlocalityis a misleading concept. Metaphorically speaking, quantum nonlocality isJanus faced. One face is an apparent nonlocality of the state update basedon the Luders projection postulate. It can be referred as intrinsic quantumnonlocality. And the other face is subquantumnonlocality: by introducing a special model with hidden variables onederives the Bell inequality and claims that its violation implies the existenceof mysterious instantaneous influences between distant physical systems(Bell nonlocality). According to the Luders projection postulate, aquantum measurement performed on one of the two distant entangled physicalsystems, say on S1, modifies instantaneously the state of S2. Therefore, ifthe quantum state is considered to be an attribute of the individual physicalsystem (Copenhagen interpretation) and if one assumes thatexperimental outcomes are produced in a random way one arrives at the contradiction. It is a primary source of speculation about aspooky action at the distance. But Einstein had already pointed out that the quantum paradoxes disappear, ifone adopts the statistical interpretation.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Nov 28, 2024•0 citations

Bell's inequality and 'ghost-like action-at-a-distance' in quantum mechanics

R. D. Mattuck

The phenomenon of nonlocality in quantum mechanics is one of its most fundamental features and is most strikingly exemplified in the discussion of the Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) type of experiment. The generality of Bell's inequality and the results of experiments done up to now show that local hidden-variable theories are ruled out as a means to resolve the famous EPR paradox. What remains for further consideration are the nonlocal and the Einstein-separable hidden-variable models. Finally, an alternative and possibly successful approach in trying to 'explain' nonlocality might involve ideas of backward causation.

European Journal of Physics•Apr 1, 1982•1 citation
This note is a part of my effort to rid quantum mechanics (QM) nonlocality. Quantum nonlocality is a two faced Janus: one face is a genuine quantum mechanical nonlocality (defined by the Lüders' projection postulate). Another face is the nonlocality of the hidden variables model that was invented by Bell. This paper is devoted the deconstruction of the latter. The main casualty of Bell's model is that it straightforwardly contradicts Heisenberg's uncertainty and Bohr's complementarity principles generally. Thus, we do not criticize the derivation or interpretation of the Bell inequality (as was done by numerous authors). Our critique is directed against the model as such. The original Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) argument assumed the Heisenberg's principle without questioning its validity. Hence, the arguments of EPR and Bell differ crucially, and it is necessary to establish the physical ground of the aforementioned principles. This is the quantum postulate: the existence of an indivisible quantum of action given by the Planck constant. Bell's approach with hidden variables implicitly implies rejection of the quantum postulate, since the latter is the basis of the reference principles.
This note is a part of my efforts for getting rid of nonlocality from quantum mechanics (QM). Quantum nonlocality is two faced Janus, one face is apparent quantum mechanical nonlocality (assigned with projection postulate), another face is nonlocality of Bell's model with the hidden variables. This paper is directed against the latter. The main casualty of Bell's model is that it contradicts to the Heinsenberg's uncertainty and Bohr's complementarity principles. The aim of this note is to point to the physical seed of the aforementioned principles. This is the {\it quantum postulate}: the existence of indivisible quantum of action given by the Planck constant. Bell's model by contradicting to the basic principles of QM implies rejection of this postulate. Thus, it contradicts not only to the QM-formalism, but also to the fundamental feature of the quantum world that was initially discovered by Planck.
Abstract We present a quantum mechanical (QM) analysis of Bell’s approach to quantum foundations based on his hidden-variable model. We claim and try to justify that the Bell model contradicts to the Heinsenberg’s uncertainty and Bohr’s complementarity principles. The aim of this note is to point to the physical seed of the aforementioned principles. This is the Bohr’squantum postulate: the existence of indivisible quantum of action given by the Planck constanth. By contradicting these basic principles of QM, Bell’s model implies rejection of this postulate as well. Thus, this hidden-variable model contradicts not only the QM-formalism, but also the fundamental feature of the quantum world discovered by Planck.
This paper is a new step towards understanding why "quantum nonlocality" is a misleading concept. Metaphorically speaking, "quantum nonlocality" is Janus faced. One face is an apparent nonlocality of the Lüders projection and another face is Bell nonlocality (a wrong conclusion that the violation of Bell type inequalities implies the existence of mysterious instantaneous influences between distant physical systems). According to the Lüders projection postulate, a quantum measurement performed on one of the two distant entangled physical systems modifies their compound quantum state instantaneously. Therefore, if the quantum state is considered to be an attribute of the individual physical system and if one assumes that experimental outcomes are produced in a perfectly random way, one quickly arrives at the contradiction. It is a primary source of speculations about a spooky action at a distance. Bell nonlocality as defined above was explained and rejected by several authors; thus, we concentrate in this paper on the apparent nonlocality of the Lüders projection. As already pointed out by Einstein, the quantum paradoxes disappear if one adopts the purely statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics (QM). In the statistical interpretation of QM, if probabilities are considered to be objective properties of random experiments we show that the Lüders projection corresponds to the passage from joint probabilities describing all set of data to some marginal conditional probabilities describing some particular subsets of data. If one adopts a subjective interpretation of probabilities, such as QBism, then the Lüders projection corresponds to standard Bayesian updating of the probabilities. The latter represents degrees of beliefs of local agents about outcomes of individual measurements which are placed or which will be placed at distant locations. In both approaches, probability-transformation does not happen in the physical space, but only in the information space. Thus, all speculations about spooky interactions or spooky predictions at a distance are simply misleading. Coming back to Bell nonlocality, we recall that in a recent paper we demonstrated, using exclusively the quantum formalism, that CHSH inequalities may be violated for some quantum states only because of the incompatibility of quantum observables and Bohr's complementarity. Finally, we explain that our criticism of quantum nonlocality is in the spirit of Hertz-Boltzmann methodology of scientific theories.
The hidden variable project realized by Bell contradicts the uncertaintyand complementarity principles. The inequalities derived with Bell’s hidden variablesare violated for quantum observables. Thus, Bell’s hidden variables shouldbe rejected and the validity of quantum theory is confirmed. (This foundationalachievement deserved the Nobel Prize in 2022.) This scientific loop,ignorance of the uncertainty and complementarity principles – hidden variablesmodel – Bell’s inequalities – their violation – reestablishing the validityof the uncertainty and complementarity principles, was stimulating for quantumfoundations. However, Bohr and Heisenberg might say that such resultscan be expected from the very beginning. For them, the uncertainty andcomplementarity principles form the basis of quantum physics. And theycan’t be rejected, since they are the consequences of the so-called quantum postulate– the existence of an indivisible quantum of action given by Planck’sconstant h. The quantum postulate is the ontological basis of quantum theory.I formulated its epistemic counterpart in the form of the principle ofquantum action invariance.
This chapter is a step towards understanding why quantum nonlocalityis a misleading concept. Metaphorically speaking, quantum nonlocality isJanus faced. One face is an apparent nonlocality of the state update basedon the Luders projection postulate. It can be referred as intrinsic quantumnonlocality. And the other face is subquantumnonlocality: by introducing a special model with hidden variables onederives the Bell inequality and claims that its violation implies the existenceof mysterious instantaneous influences between distant physical systems(Bell nonlocality). According to the Luders projection postulate, aquantum measurement performed on one of the two distant entangled physicalsystems, say on S1, modifies instantaneously the state of S2. Therefore, ifthe quantum state is considered to be an attribute of the individual physicalsystem (Copenhagen interpretation) and if one assumes thatexperimental outcomes are produced in a random way one arrives at the contradiction. It is a primary source of speculation about aspooky action at the distance. But Einstein had already pointed out that the quantum paradoxes disappear, ifone adopts the statistical interpretation.
The phenomenon of nonlocality in quantum mechanics is one of its most fundamental features and is most strikingly exemplified in the discussion of the Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) type of experiment. The generality of Bell's inequality and the results of experiments done up to now show that local hidden-variable theories are ruled out as a means to resolve the famous EPR paradox. What remains for further consideration are the nonlocal and the Einstein-separable hidden-variable models. Finally, an alternative and possibly successful approach in trying to 'explain' nonlocality might involve ideas of backward causation.