Oxford University Press eBooks

“Non-locality”

Richard Healey

Published Jul 20, 2017• 0 citations

Abstract

Quantum entanglement is popularly believed to give rise to spooky action at a distance of a kind that Einstein decisively rejected. Indeed, important recent experiments on systems assigned entangled states have been claimed to refute Einstein by exhibiting such spooky action. After reviewing two considerations in favor of this view I argue that quantum theory can be used to explain puzzling correlations correctly predicted by assignment of entangled quantum states with no such instantaneous action at a distance. We owe both considerations in favor of the view to arguments of John Bell. I present simplified forms of these arguments as well as a game that provides insight into the situation. The argument I give in response turns on a prescriptive view of quantum states that differs both from Dirac’s (as stated in Chapter 2) and Einstein’s.

DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198714057.003.0004

Related papers

There Is No Action at a Distance in Quantum Mechanics, Spooky or Otherwise

S. P. Boughn

I feel compelled to respond to the frequent references to spooky action at a distance that often accompany reports of experiments investigating entangled quantum mechanical states. Most, but not all, of these articles have appeared in the popular press. As an experimentalist I have great admiration for such experiments and the concomitant advances in quantum information and quantum computing, but accompanying claims of action at a distance are quite simply nonsense. Some physicists and philosophers of science have bought into the story by promoting the nonlocal nature of quantum mechanics. In 1964, John Bell proved that classical hidden variable theories cannot reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics unless they employ some type of action at a distance. I have no problem with this conclusion. Unfortunately, Bell later expanded his analysis and mistakenly deduced that quantum mechanics and by implication nature herself are nonlocal. In addition, some of these articles present Einstein in caricature, a tragic figure who neither understood quantum mechanics nor believed it to be an accurate theory of nature. Consequently, the current experiments have proven him wrong. This is also nonsense.

arXiv:1806.07925Jan 1, 20180 citations

A Critical Analysis of the Quantum Nonlocality Problem: On the Polemic Assessment of What Bell Did

Justo Pastor Lambare

Despite their Nobel Prize-winning empirical falsification, the interpretation of the Bell inequality remains a subject of controversy. This article discusses and attempts to clarify the reasons John S. Bell and A. Einstein claimed that quantum entanglement implies puzzling nonlocal correlations that Einstein famously termed ``spooky action at a distance.'' The issue remains notoriously controversial and has roughly divided the scientific community into localists and nonlocalists. Without taking a stance on either side in the long-standing, polarized debate, we examine Bell's actual argument, highlighting how it differs from the current orthodoxy.

Oct 29, 20250 citations

On the polemic assessment of what Bell did

Justo Pastor Lambare

Despite their Nobel Prize-winning empirical falsification, the interpretation of Bell's inequality remains a subject of controversy. This article discusses and attempts to clarify the reasons John S. Bell and A. Einstein claimed that quantum entanglement implies puzzling nonlocal correlations that Einstein famously termed ``spooky action at a distance.'' The issue remains notoriously controversial and has roughly divided the scientific community into localists and nonlocalists. Without taking a stance on either side in the long-standing, polarized debate, we examine Bell's actual argument and highlight how his reasoning differs from the current orthodoxy.

arXiv:2506.22915Jun 28, 20250 citations

Strengthening Bell's Theorem: Removing the Hidden-Variable Assumption

Henry Pierce Stapp

Spooky Action at a Distance In the context of correlation experiments involving pairs of experiments performed at very nearly the same time in very far-apart experimental regions, Einstein famously said [1], But on one supposition we should in my opinion hold absolutely fast: “The real factual situation of the system S2 is independent of what is done with system S1 which is spatially separated from the former.” This demand is incompatible with the basic ideas of standard (Copenhagen/orthodox) quantum mechanics, which makes two relevant claims: (1) Experimenters in the two labs make “local free choices” that determine which experiments will be performed in their respective labs. These choices are free in the sense of not being predetermined by the prior history of the physically described aspects of the universe, and they are localized in the sense that the physical effects of these free choices are inserted into the physically described aspects of the universe only within the laboratory in which the associated experiment is being performed. (2) These choices of what is done with the system being measured in one lab can (because of a measurement-induced global collapse of the quantum state) influence the outcome of the experiment performed at very close to the same time in the very faraway lab. This influence of what is done with the system being measured in one region upon the outcome appearing at very nearly the same time in a very faraway lab was called “spooky action at a distance” by Einstein, and was rejected by him as a possible feature of “reality.” John Bell's Quasi-classical Statistical Theory Responding to the seeming existence in the quantum world of “spooky actions,” John Bell [2] proposed a possible alternative to the standard approach that might conceivably be able to reconcile quantum spookiness with “reality.” This alternative approach rests on the fact that quantum mechanics is a statistical theory.We already have in physics a statistical theory called “classical statistical mechanics.”

Cambridge University Press eBooksAug 31, 20161 citation

Entanglement and Non‐Locality: Spooky Actions at a Distance

Christopher C. Gerry, Kimberley M. Bruno

This chapter focuses the concepts of entanglement and non-locality. Quantum mechanics has yet another mystery—one that occurs as a consequence of superposition states involving two or more particles or two or more beams of photons. This is referred to as entanglement, also known as non-separability. The existence of entangled states is allowed, and even mandated, by quantum mechanics, and this leads us into yet another mystery: non-locality. It demonstrates how subatomic particles can be put into entangled states which reveal strange correlation effects—the effects being the essence of entanglement. It discusses the EPR argument, from the 1935 paper by Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen; the polarization states of photons; Bell's theorem; and the Hardy–Jordan argument.

Oxford University Press eBooksFeb 21, 20131 citation

Causation and Locality

Richard Healey

By moving to the context of relativistic space-time structure, this chapter completes the argument of Chapter 4 that we can use quantum theory locally to explain correlations that violate Bell inequalities with no instantaneous action at a distance. Chance here must be relativized not just to time but to a space-time point, so that an event may have more than one chance at the same time—it may even be certain relative to one space-time point but ‘at the same time’ completely uncertain relative to another. This renders Bell’s principle of Local Causality either inapplicable or intuitively unmotivated. Counterfactual dependence between the outcomes of measurements on systems assigned an entangled state is not causal since neither outcome is subject to intervention: but it may still be appealed to in a non-causal explanation of one in terms of the other.

Oxford University Press eBooksJul 20, 20170 citations