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.
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.
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.
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.
We show that the projection postulate plays a crucial role in the discussion on the so called "quantum nonlocality," in particular in the EPR-argument. We stress that the original von Neumann projection postulate was crucially modified by extending it to observables with degenerate spectra (the Lüders postulate) and we show that this modification is highly questionable from a physical point of view, and it is the real source of "quantum nonlocality." The use of the original von Neumann postulate eliminates this problem: instead of "action at the distance"-nonlocality, we obtain a classical measurement nonlocality. The latter is related to the synchronization of two measurements (on the two parts of a composite system). It seems that EPR did mistake in their 1935-paper: if one uses correctly von Neumann projection postulate, no "elements of reality" can be assigned to entangled systems. Our analysis of the EPR and projection postulate makes clearer Bohr's considerations in his reply to Einstein.
Eighty years ago Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen demonstrated that instantaneous reduction of wave function, believed to describe completely a pair of entangled physical systems, led to EPR paradox. The paradox disappears in statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics (QM) according to which a wave function describes only an ensemble of identically prepared physical systems. QM predicts strong correlations between outcomes of measurements performed on different members of EPR pairs in far-away locations. Searching for an intuitive explanation of these correlations John Bell analysed so called local realistic hidden variable models and proved that correlations consistent with these models satisfy Bell inequalities which are violated by some predictions of QM and by experimental data. Several different local models were constructed and inequalities proven. Some eminent physicists concluded that Nature is definitely nonlocal and that it is acting according to a law of nonlocal randomness. According to these law perfectly random, but strongly correlated events, can be produced at the same time in far away locations and a local and causal explanation of their occurrence cannot be given. We strongly disagree with this conclusion and we prove the contrary by analysing in detail some influential finite sample proofs of Bell and CHSH inequalities and so called Quantum Randi Challenges. We also show how one can win so called Bell's game without violating locality of Nature. Nonlocal randomness is inconsistent with local quantum field theory, with standard model in elementary particle physics and with causal laws and adaptive dynamics prevailing in the surrounding us world. The experimental violation of Bell-type inequalities does not prove the nonlocality of Nature but it only confirms a contextual character of quantum observables and gives a strong argument against counterfactual definiteness and against a point of view according to which experimental outcomes are produced in irreducible random way.
The problem of the existence of nonlocal effects in Quantum Mechanics is discussed. The problem is divided in two: the first ('soft') one is to explain the violation of Bell's inequalities as a statistical magnitude. This can be achieved by a simple model within non-Boolean Locality and Realism. This result shows that quantum non-Locality as a consequence of the statistical violation of Bell's inequalities is inexistent. The second ('hard') problem is to explain the violation as it is calculated from series of detection outcomes. L.Sica has demonstrated that, in order to violate Bell's inequalities, the series recorded at (say) Bob when the setting at station Alice is alfa, can be different from the series that would have been recorded at Bob if that setting had been alfa'instead. Therefore, non-Locality in the series of detection outcomes does exist. It cannot be experimentally verified because of its counterfactual nature, but is observed in computer simulations. An appropriate computer code is based on the simple model mentioned plus a contextual instruction. It explains 'how' (Sica's) non-Locality arises, and solves the hard problem. 'Why' the contextual instruction exists is explained by Hellwig and Kraus' postulate of covariant quantum state collapse. In consequence, (Sica's) non-Locality is not in contradiction with Relativity but, quite the opposite, it is implied by Relativistic covariance.
Quantum nonlocality has been a long-standing and fascinating problem in the foundations of quantum theory since its proof by the Bell inequality. It seems to contradict our intuitive picture of space-time and thus urges us to reconsider its foundation. With the advent of quantum information science, it has attracted renewed interest from a fundamental point of view as well as from a quantum information-theoretic one. Another fundamental question on the nature of quantum theory is how we understand what quantum states represent. (Quantum states hereafter refer to pure states.) This is also a long-standing problem since the early days of quantum theory. Roughly speaking, there are two conflicting views on this matter: one is ontology and the other is epistemology. Ontological models of quantum theory are models in which we assume some underlying reality for physical systems and require that all the predictions of quantum theory should be reproduced. The ontological models are divided into two categories, depending on which views the models are based on, ontology or epistemology. In the models based on ontology, quantum states represent the underlying reality in some sense, and different quantum states correspond to different realities. In the models based on epistemology, quantum states do not necessarily correspond to the underlying realities, and even different quantum states can be consistent with a common underlying reality. The former type of ontological models of quantum theory is called 1⁄4-ontic. The latter is called 1⁄4-epistemic. Thus, it might be rather confusing that ontological models are classified further into 1⁄4-ontic models and 1⁄4-epistemic ones. We use these terms here in accordance with the recent literature on quantum foundations. (For details of these notions in the ontological models of quantum theory, see the paper by Harrigan and Spekkens.) Quite recently, the question just mentioned has been answered by Pusey et al., and one of the above models has been refuted. It was shown that 1⁄4-epistemic models are inconsistent with the predictions of quantum theory. In other words, epistemological views on quantum states turned out to be false as long as we assume some underlying reality for physical systems. Therefore, only 1⁄4-ontic models of quantum theory are valid for describing quantum systems. This significantly advances our understanding on the nature of quantum states. It is expected that various conclusions will be drawn from this fact. In this paper, we will discuss a connection with nonlocality. The above two fundamental questions, nonlocality and the nature of quantum states, are intimately connected, and the connection was first implicitly recognised by Einstein in the early days of quantum theory. In a private correspondence with Schrodinger, Einstein constructed a fascinating argument that relates the above two. (That argument is distinctly different from the well-known EPR argument.) Recently, it was revisited and reconstructed in accordance with more rigorous notions in quantum foundations. Nonlocality is usually shown by violations of Bell inequalities. (Bell inequalities hereafter include all the subsequent developments such as the CHSH inequality.) Even if it is not clear whether the models of quantum theory are 1⁄4-ontic or 1⁄4-epistemic, we can prove nonlocality just by showing the violation of Bell inequalities. However, the above argument originated by Einstein implies that if we know the models are 1⁄4-ontic in advance (as we do now), we can prove nonlocality in a simpler way without Bell inequalities. (This argument had been known in quantum foundations before the refutation of 1⁄4-epistemic models.) Nonlocality is rigorously defined as a violation of the notion of local causality defined by Bell. Showing the violation of Bell inequalities is one way of demonstrating the violation of local causality. Since the simpler proof initiated by Einstein directly demonstrates the violation of local causality, it is a more straightforward proof of nonlocality from a conceptual point of view. In the following, we will see that this simple argument of nonlocality without Bell inequalities can be used to show multipartite nonlocality as well. Before moving onto multipartite cases, first let us define the necessary notions for presenting our result. First of all, we assume that there exists a complete specification of the properties of a physical system, which we refer to as the ontic state of that system. The ontic states represent the underlying realities and are not necessarily equal to ordinary quantum states. (In other words, the ontic states correspond to hidden variables.) Ontological models of quantum theory are models that assume ontic states and reproduce all the predictions of quantum theory. An important question is how ontic states correspond to quantum states in quantum theory. In order to frame the question accurately, we need the notion of an epistemic state, which represents the relation between them. Suppose we prepare a physical system in a quantum state 1⁄4. Although the system is uniquely specified as 1⁄4 in quantum theory, there still remains a possibility that it allows a more detailed specification in the ontic state space, in which case many different ontic states turn out to be consistent with 1⁄4. The relation between ontic states and the preparation procedure, P1⁄4, is described by a conditional probability distribution over the ontic state space, pð jP1⁄4Þ, which we refer to as an epistemic state. In general, the preparation P can be a preparation of a physical system in a mixed sate. Unless there exists a one-to-one correspondence between ontic states and quantum states, the probability distribution spreads over . (See Fig. 1.) The question of whether an ontological model is 1⁄4-ontic or 1⁄4-epistemic is concerned with the behaviour of the epistemic states for two distinct preparations of quantum states. Consider two distinct preparations of quantum states, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 82 (2013) 055003