Abstract If we reject the ‘spooky’ action at a distance that seems to be required in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory, and which is highlighted by the EPR thought experiment, we must accept the EPR argument that the theory is somehow incomplete. In essence, this involves the rejection of the first postulate of quantum theory: the state of a quantum mechanical system is not completely described by the wave function or state vector.Einstein had hinted at a statistical interpretation. In his opinion, the squares of the wave functions or state vectors of quantum theory represented statistical probabilities obtained by averaging over a large number of real particles. The Copenhagen interpretation of the EPR experiment insists that the reality of the physical states that can be measured is defined by the nature of the interaction between two quantum particles and the nature of the experimental arrangement. A completely deterministic, locally real version of quantum theory demands that the physical states of the particles be established at the moment of their interaction and that the particles separate as individually real entities in those physical states. The physical states of the particles are prescribed by the physics of their interaction and independent of how we choose to set up the measuring instrument, and so no reference to the nature of the latter is necessary, except to define how the independently real particles interact with it. The instrument thus probes an observer-independent reality.
Abstract If we reject the ‘spooky’ action at a distance that seems to be required in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory, and which is highlighted by the EPR thought experiment, we must accept the EPR argument that the theory is somehow incomplete. In essence, this involves the rejection of the first postulate of quantum theory: the state of a quantum mechanical system is not completely described by the wave function or state vector.Einstein had hinted at a statistical interpretation. In his opinion, the squares of the wave functions or state vectors of quantum theory represented statistical probabilities obtained by averaging over a large number of real particles. The Copenhagen interpretation of the EPR experiment insists that the reality of the physical states that can be measured is defined by the nature of the interaction between two quantum particles and the nature of the experimental arrangement. A completely deterministic, locally real version of quantum theory demands that the physical states of the particles be established at the moment of their interaction and that the particles separate as individually real entities in those physical states. The physical states of the particles are prescribed by the physics of their interaction and independent of how we choose to set up the measuring instrument, and so no reference to the nature of the latter is necessary, except to define how the independently real particles interact with it. The instrument thus probes an observer-independent reality.
The quantum theory (QT) and new stochastic approaches have no deterministic prediction for a single measurement or for a single time‐series of events observed for a trapped ion, electron or any other individual physical system. The predictions of QT being of probabilistic character apply to the statistical distribution of the results obtained in various experiments. The Copenhagen interpretation (CI) of QT acknowledged the abstract and statistical character of the predictions of QT but at the same time claimed that a state vector Ψ provided complete description of each individual physical system. The assigning the state vector to an individual physical system together with a postulate of its instantaneous reduction in the measurements was shown by Einstein Podolski and Rosen to lead to so called EPR paradox for the experiments with the entangled pairs of the particles. EPR concluded that a state vector could not provide a complete description of the individual systems and the question arose whether the probabilistic predictions of QT could be derived from some more fundamental spatio‐temporal deterministic description of the invisible sub‐phenomena by introduction of supplementary parameters. The experimental violation of the Bell inequalities in the spin polarization correlation experiments (SPCE) which were the implementations of Bohm and EPR gedanken experiments eliminated so called local and realistic models of the sub‐phenomena. Quite often the violation of these inequalities has been incorrectly interpreted as a proof of the completeness of QT or as the violation of the locality and causality in the micro‐world. The local and realistic models overlooked the fact that an experimental outcome is only the information about a particular system‐system or system‐instrument interaction. Namely the quantum phenomena are described in terms of the probabilities. It is well known that the probability distribution is not an attribute of a dice but it is a characteristic of a whole random experiment: “rolling a dice”. In this paper we will underline: that the quantum probabilities do not describe the lack of knowledge about the physical systems but the lack of knowledge about the experiments and therefore they are “contextual” and that the statistical long range correlations between two random variables X and Y are not a proof of any causal relation between these variables. Moreover any probabilistic model used to described a random experiment is consistent only with a specific protocol telling how the random experiment has to be performed. The probabilistic model used to prove Bell inequalities implied a protocol completely inappropriate and impossible to implement for SPCE . We conclude that the meaningful question about the predictable completeness of QT is still open and it should be answered by a careful and unconventional analysis of the experimental data. The correct understanding of statistical and contextual character of QT is essential for the research in the domain of quantum information and quantum computing.
In the interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, there were four major mistakes done at different levels: (1)A misinterpretation of Bell’s theorem in which the original intent did not include non-locality, but as a test to see whether or not a particle has a certain property that can be measured. (2)A misinterpretation of the disagreement between Einstein and Bohr. Einstein’s objection to the collapse of the wave function implied a spooky action at a distance, while Bohr insisted on the instantaneous collapse of the wave function which he mistook to be a real wave. (3)A misinterpretation that the wave function represents a real wave when in actuality it represents the possible states of a quantum system before a measurement. (4)When Bell’s theorem was violated by a quantum system, those violations were misinterpreted as evidence of an instantaneous collapse of the wave function and non-locality. We will argue: there is no collapse of the wave function. Bell’s theorem is not about non-locality. There is no spooky action at a distance. And Quantum Mechanics is about measuring quantities at the microscopic scales and in doing so, these quantities are altered. So what we get is partial knowledge. But in spite of that obstacle, we still get a theory of reality with considerable success.
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.”
According to the orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics (Bohr being its leading voice), the attributes of a physical object (position, momentum, spin, etc.) can be assigned only when they have been measured. Einstein advocated the local realist viewpoint that an object had definite attributes whether they had been measured or not. The Copenhagen school view that measurement actually produces an object’s property would imply that the measurement of one part of an entangled quantum state can instantaneously fix the value of another part, no matter how far the two parts have been separated. Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen devised a thought experiment to shine a light on this “spooky action-at-a-distance” feature; its discussion and debate have illuminated the meaning of quantum mechanics (QM). It led later to Bell’s theorem showing that these seemingly philosophical questions can lead to observable results. The experimental vindication of the orthodox theory has sharpened our appreciation of the nonlocal features of quantum mechanics. Nevertheless, the counter-intuitive QM picture of objective reality still troubles many, leaving one to wonder whether quantum mechanics is ultimately a complete theory.
Despite its remarkable success in describing microscopic phenomena, quantum mechanics continues to pose unresolved foundational questions concerning measurement, nonlocality, wavefunction collapse, and the nature of physical reality. These issues were highlighted by the EPR paradox. Quantum mechanics predicts that measuring one particle’s observable instantaneously determines the state of the other, seemingly violating special relativity’s prohibition of faster-than-light influences and suggesting an incomplete description of physical reality. However, Bell’s theorem has largely ruled out local hidden variable theories. In this paper, I critically examine the assumptions in deriving Bell’s theorem and demonstrate that the theorem does not apply strictly to quantum mechanics. By assuming measurement is always accompanied by uncontrollable environment interactions, I show that quantum theory can be local and realism with decoherence in EPR-like measurement. Specifically, I apply the quantum decoherence framework, pioneered by Zeh, Zurek and Leggett to analyze an EPR-like system using system-environment interactions as a measurement model. The results illustrate that measurement on one entangled particle does not instantaneously collapse the system's wavefunction. Instead, the local wavefunctions of the measured particle and its environment evolve dynamically, while the remote particle’s wavefunction remains unchanged. Environment-induced decoherence selects pointer states and rapidly suppresses quantum correlations through strictly local interactions, giving rise to the appearance of wavefunction collapse. These findings challenge the conventional interpretation of Bell’s theorem and suggest that quantum mechanics fundamentally respects locality and realism if the wavefunction is treated as an ontic entity. This work offers a potential path toward a locally realistic quantum theory in alignment with Einstein’s vision. It not only strengthens the conceptual foundations of quantum mechanics, but also carries tremendous implications for quantum information processing and computing.
Despite its remarkable success in describing microscopic phenomena, quantum mechanics continues to pose unresolved foundational questions concerning measurement, nonlocality, wavefunction collapse, and the nature of physical reality. These issues were highlighted by the EPR paradox1-2, in which Einstein and his co-authors examined the measurement of entangled particles in space-like separation. Quantum mechanics predicts that measuring one particle’s observable instantaneously determines the state of the other, seemingly violating special relativity’s prohibition of faster-than-light influences and suggesting an incomplete description of physical reality. However, Bell’s theorem3-5, along with the Bell-Kochen-Specker theorem6-10 and subsequent experiments, has largely ruled out local hidden variable theories. In this work, I apply the quantum decoherence framework11-13, pioneered by Zeh, Zurek, Joos and Leggett et al. to analyze an EPR-like system using system-environment interactions as a measurement model. I demonstrate that measurement on one entangled particle does not instantaneously collapse the system's wavefunction. Instead, the local wavefunctions of the measured particle and its environment evolve dynamically, while the remote particle’s wavefunction remains unchanged. Environment-induced decoherence selects pointer states and rapidly suppresses quantum correlations through local interactions, giving rise to the appearance of wavefunction collapse. These findings suggest that quantum mechanics can be reconciled with local realism if the wavefunction is treated as an ontic entity, offering a potential path toward a locally realistic quantum theory in alignment with Einstein’s vision.