Introduction Our concern in this chapter is locality in quantum mechanics (QM). Locality is a heuristic physics principle based on the following propositions. No Action-at-a-Distance All the evidence points to the principle that physical actions, taken within restricted (localized) regions of space and time by observers or other agencies such as systems under observation (SUOs), do not cause instantly observable effects on other SUOs at large distances. This does not apply to mathematical/ metaphysical concepts such as quantum wave functions or correlations, as these are conceptual objects (Scarani et al., 2000). Statements about instantaneous wave function collapse are vacuous (have no empirical significance) and are therefore not an issue of significance in physics. Such statements are an issue to theorists who objectivize wave functions, as in Hidden Variables (HV) theory. Action-at-a-distance is generally regarded as anathema by most physicists. For example, Newton's law of universal gravitation is well known for mathematically encoding action-at-a-distance. There is direct evidence, however, in the form of a letter written by Newton to Bentley, that Newton believed that gravity acting “at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else” was an absurdity (Newton, 2006). The no action-at-a-distance principle is encoded in quantized detector networks (QDN) by the requirement that labstate preparation and consequent signal detection never occur at the same stage. Causal Transmission All physically observable consequences of local actions taken by an observer or SUO are transmitted by identifiable physical processes, such as electromagnetic waves or neutrinos. There is no such thing as magic or action-at-a-distance . In QDN this proposition is taken into account implicitly in the labstate outcome amplitudes at each stage, as these model how information is propagated from stage to stage. When necessary, the information void can be modeled as if there were fields and/or particles propagating through it, giving scope for different mathematical models, such as Euclidean space, curved spacetime, noncommuting spacetimes, and so on. The structure of the information void is essentially a discussion of whatever modules have to be taken into account between labstate preparation and signal detection.
Introduction Our concern in this chapter is locality in quantum mechanics (QM). Locality is a heuristic physics principle based on the following propositions. No Action-at-a-Distance All the evidence points to the principle that physical actions, taken within restricted (localized) regions of space and time by observers or other agencies such as systems under observation (SUOs), do not cause instantly observable effects on other SUOs at large distances. This does not apply to mathematical/ metaphysical concepts such as quantum wave functions or correlations, as these are conceptual objects (Scarani et al., 2000). Statements about instantaneous wave function collapse are vacuous (have no empirical significance) and are therefore not an issue of significance in physics. Such statements are an issue to theorists who objectivize wave functions, as in Hidden Variables (HV) theory. Action-at-a-distance is generally regarded as anathema by most physicists. For example, Newton's law of universal gravitation is well known for mathematically encoding action-at-a-distance. There is direct evidence, however, in the form of a letter written by Newton to Bentley, that Newton believed that gravity acting “at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else” was an absurdity (Newton, 2006). The no action-at-a-distance principle is encoded in quantized detector networks (QDN) by the requirement that labstate preparation and consequent signal detection never occur at the same stage. Causal Transmission All physically observable consequences of local actions taken by an observer or SUO are transmitted by identifiable physical processes, such as electromagnetic waves or neutrinos. There is no such thing as magic or action-at-a-distance . In QDN this proposition is taken into account implicitly in the labstate outcome amplitudes at each stage, as these model how information is propagated from stage to stage. When necessary, the information void can be modeled as if there were fields and/or particles propagating through it, giving scope for different mathematical models, such as Euclidean space, curved spacetime, noncommuting spacetimes, and so on. The structure of the information void is essentially a discussion of whatever modules have to be taken into account between labstate preparation and signal detection.
PROSPECTIVE The concern of this paper will be different from that of most studies of quantum gravity. There will be no discussion of the problem of quantizing the gravitational field equations, hence nothing about the modifications which quantization requires of space-time structure at distances of the order of the Planck length (∼ 10 −33 cm). The emphasis will be rather upon the implications of quantum mechanics for certain general properties of events and processes which occur in the theatre of space-time, specifically with non-locality and nonlinearity . Quantum mechanics is undoubtedly a non-local theory when it treats correlated spatially separated systems. When one examines closely the character of this non-locality, however, one does not find reasons for modifying the causal structure of space-time as described by special or general relativity theory, but rather reasons for refining the concept of an event. The occurrence of definite outcomes of measurements implies that there are processes in nature governed by nonlinear laws. Nonlinearity is very peculiar from the standpoint of quantum mechanics, since it is contrary to the linearity of the time-dependent Schrödinger equation, which is commonly assumed to govern the dynamics of any isolated physical system. Hence it is necessary to inquire whether a rational treatment of the occurrence of outcomes is possible without some modifications of current quantum mechanics. Whatever decision is reached on this question, however, it does not appear to bear directly on space-time structure, but rather on the general character of processes.
Introduction Fifty years after the publication of Bell's theorem, there remains some controversy regarding what the theorem is telling us about quantum mechanics, and what the experimental violations of Bell inequalities are telling us about the world. This chapter represents my best attempt to be clear about what I think the lessons are. In brief: There is some sort of nonlocality inherent in any quantum theory, and, moreover, in any theory that reproduces, even approximately, the quantum probabilities for the outcomes of experiments. But not all forms of nonlocality are the same; there is a distinction to be made between action at a distance and other forms of nonlocality, and I will argue that the nonlocality needed to violate the Bell inequalities need not involve action at a distance. Furthermore, the distinction between forms of nonlocality makes a difference when it comes to compatibility with relativistic causal structure. The Bell locality condition is a condition which, if satisfied, renders possible a completely local account of the correlations between outcomes of spatially separated experiments. Bell's theorem tells us that the probabilities that we compute from quantum mechanics do not admit of such an account. Modulo auxiliary assumptions that, in my opinion, should be noncontroversial, this yields the conclusion that there must be something nonlocal about any theory that yields the quantum mechanical probabilities or anything close to them. One way to violate the Bell locality condition – and this is the way that any deterministic theory must do it – is via straightforward action at a distance. However, we should also consider the possibility of a stochastic theorywith probabilistic laws that involve irreducible correlations. The sort of nonlocality inherent in such a theory involves relations between events that are significantly different from causal relations as usually conceived. Perhaps surprisingly, such a theory, unlike its deterministic cousins, need not invoke a distinguished relation of distant simultaneity. This makes a difference for the situation of the two sorts of theories vis-a-vis relativity. Though a deterministic theory can achieve the appearance of being relativistic, at the level of observable phenomena, it can do so only by introducing a preferred foliation and with it a causal structure at odds with relativistic causal structures. Things are otherwise with dynamical collapse theories.
Abstract Isaac Newton’s theory of gravity seems to postulate action at a distance. Two distant massive bodies act on one another gravitationally instantaneously without a causal mechanism to mediate the action. This paper will argue that a strategy found in the Principia that allows Newton’s theory to be explanatory without providing a causal explanation can be extended to the quantum case. However, while causal action at a distance can be avoided, the explanatory cost of avoiding any form of nonlocality is higher in the quantum case than in the case of Newton’s theory of universal gravitation.
Motivation The aim of this book is to introduce, develop, and apply quantized detector networks (QDN), an information-based, observer-centric approach to quantum mechanics (QM). Six reasons motivating our development of QDN are the following. Avoidance of Metaphysical Speculation There is such a variety of unproven (and unprovable) speculation concerning the interpretation of QM that the subject of this book, QDN, may appear at first sight to be yet another in this growing branch of metaphysics. In fact, our motivation is precisely the opposite. QDN was intended from the outset to reduce the level of metaphysics in the application of QM. To achieve this, our strategy is to move the traditional focus of attention away from systems under observation (SUOs) and toward the observers of those SUOs. In QDN, wave functions represent not states of SUOs but states of apparatus. We shall call such states labstates , to distinguish them from states of SUOs (which do have a place in QDN). It is only labstates that observers can ever deal with directly. In this respect, QDN is an attempt at a more laboratory-based description of quantum physics than standard QM, focusing as much on how an experiment is done as on the results of that experiment. For example, instead of talking about the wave function of an electron, QDN talks about the labstate of the signal detectors that allow us to say anything about that electron in the first place. That is all, there is nothing deeper. Whether or not electrons actually “exist” is thereby relegated to an inessential metaphysical issue that we can choose to ignore. It is important to understand what QDN does not say as much as what it does say. QDN does not say that electrons do not “exist”. QDN merely asks for an empirical definition of “existence”. QM Is Much More Than a Calculational Device Many physicists hold the utilitarian view that the success of quantum theory in predicting experimental data is sufficient for their purposes, and that further inquiry is really the business of metaphysics and therefore outside the scope of science proper. We cannot say that this is entirely unreasonable. However, we take the view that QM represents such a radical departure from the principles of classical mechanics (CM) that this pragmatical view cannot be all there is to the subject.
Introduction The quantized detector network (QDN) formalism was designed from the outset to deal with detector networks of arbitrary complexity and rank. However, there is a price to be paid. A qubit register of rank r is a Hilbert space of dimension 2 r , so the dimensionality of quantized detector networks grows exponentially with rank. For example, a relatively small system of, say, 10 detectors involves a Hilbert space of dimension 2 10 = 1 , 024. Even such a relatively small system cannot be dealt with easily by manual calculation, because quantum mechanics (QM) involves entangled states. Labstates in QDN are far more complex (in the sense of having far more mathematical structure) than the corresponding states in a classical register of the same rank. Some of the mathematical entanglement and separability properties of quantum labstates are discussed in Chapters 22 and 23. The quantum entanglement structure of labstates poses a ubiquitous and serious problem, for both theorists and experimentalists. At this time, there is significant interest in quantum entanglement, particularly regarding its use in quantum computing, but theoretical understanding of entanglement is still surprisingly limited. On the experimental side, quantum computers with 2000 qubits are currently being developed (D-Wave Systems, 2016). There is scope here for the application of QDN to networks of rank going into the many thousands. For those sorts of systems under observation (SUOs), quantum entanglement makes calculations by hand far too laborious to be of any practical use. Fortunately, three factors come to our aid here, making the application of QDN to large-rank networks a potentially viable proposition. Modularization We saw in previous chapters that QDN deals with discrete aspects of observation, despite the fact that standard QM and relativistic quantum field theory (RQFT) deal with continuous degrees of freedom. This discreteness comes in three forms, referred to us as stages, nodes, and modules, and all of that is due to three inescapable physical facts. First, all real observations take time and involve discrete signals in finite numbers of detectors. Second, real apparatus is constructed from atoms, not continua. Third, these atoms form finite numbers of well-characterized modules, as discussed in the previous chapter. Contextuality A critically helpful fact here is that in any particular experiment, the contextual subspaces that the observer needs to deal with will usually be of significantly lower dimensions than that of the full quantum registers involved.