In 1905 A. Einstein, from the experiments of Michelson and Morley in 1887, enunciates the light speed constancy principle in the inertial frames of reference. However, this principle was pointed by the equations of the electromagnetism of J. C. Maxwell in 1865. The prediction of the Maxwell equations is due to in the most basic principle of the science, the principle of causality, is the reason of the light speed constancy. This article shown how, only with the causality principle, we can deduce the properties of the light. At the end of the article we used the causality relativistic definition to approach the local action principle, as well as to solve the paradox that implies the EPR theorem.
In 1905 A. Einstein, from the experiments of Michelson and Morley in 1887, enunciates the light speed constancy principle in the inertial frames of reference. However, this principle was pointed by the equations of the electromagnetism of J. C. Maxwell in 1865. The prediction of the Maxwell equations is due to in the most basic principle of the science, the principle of causality, is the reason of the light speed constancy. This article shown how, only with the causality principle, we can deduce the properties of the light. At the end of the article we used the causality relativistic definition to approach the local action principle, as well as to solve the paradox that implies the EPR theorem.
The most elementary empirical truth associated with any experiment involving light (electromagnetic radiation) propagation is the distinction between the source (region of cause) and the detector (region of effect), i.e. "cause/effect" distinction, based on which one can speak of "distance between source and detector", "propagation from source to detector" and, therefore, "action at a distance", "velocity of propagation". According to EPR's completeness condition, "cause/effect" distinction should be taken into account in a theory that is supposed to provide explanations for such an experiment, the simplest one being the Hertz experiment. Then, in principle, one can decide whether "cause before effect" or "cause after effect" i.e. the logic of causality remains decidable. I show that, working with Maxwell's equations and "cause/effect" distinction to explain Hertz experiment, Poynting's theorem is unprovable. It is provable if and only if "cause/effect" distinction is erased by choice through an act of free will, but the logic of causality becomes undecidable. The current theoretical foundation behind the hypothesis of 'light propagation' comes into question as theoretical optics is founded upon Maxwell's equations and Poynting's theorem. A revisit to the foundations of electrodynamics, with an emphasis on the interplay among logic, language and operation, seems necessary and motivated.
Bell's theorem shows that the reasonable relativistic causal principle known as "local causality" is not compatible with the predictions of quantum mechanics. It is not possible maintain a satisfying causal principle of this type while dropping any of the better-known assumptions of Bell's theorem. However, another assumption of Bell's theorem is the use of classical logic. One part of this assumption is the principle of "ontic definiteness", that is, that it must in principle be possible to assign definite truth values to all propositions treated in the theory. Once the logical setting is clarified somewhat, it can be seen that rejecting this principle does not in any way undermine the type of causal principle used by Bell. Without ontic definiteness, the deterministic causal condition known as Einstein Locality succeeds in banning superluminal influence (including signalling) whilst allowing correlations that violate Bell's inequalities. Objections to altering logic, and the consequences for operational and realistic viewpoints, are also addressed.
The principle of relativity claims the invariance of the results for experiments carried out in inertial reference frames if the system under examination is not in interaction with the outside world. In this paper it is analysed a model suggested by J. S. Bell, and later developed by P. H. Eberhard, D. Bohm and B. Hiley on the basis of which the EPR correlations would be due to superluminal exchanges between the various parts of the entangled system under examination. In the model the existence of a privileged reference frame ( PF ) for the propagation of superluminal signals is hypothesized so that these superluminal signals may not give rise to causal paradoxes. According to this model, in an EPR experiment, the entangled system interacts with the outer world since the result of the experiment depends on an entity (the reference frame PF ) that is not prepared by the experimenter. The existence of this privileged reference frame makes the model non invariant for Lorentz transformations. In this paper, in opposition to what claimed by the authors mentioned above, the perfect compatibility of the model with the theory of relativity is strongly maintained since, as already said, the principle of relativity does not require that the results of experiments carried out on systems interacting with the outside world should be invariant.
Introduction Important advances in scientific knowledge may, not infrequently, be looked at from several angles. Here, in investigating the question the article title defines, part of our attention will have to be turned on the relationships of Bell's theorem to the old, but still not fully cleared up, question of the nature of causality. The word “nonlocality” means the violation of local causality, the initial meaning of whichwas that no influence, that is, no causal action , can be propagated faster than light. For a long time it was a received view that actions somewhat akin to the basically time-directed ones that living beings perform also take place within inanimate nature. This conception of causality may be called the causality–action theory . But later, having in view Hume's serious reservations concerning it, renowned philosophers of science claimed it might and should be dropped, since the effects it was meant to account for could be explained just as well by considering that what is at work is simply a conjunction of physical laws expressed by means of differential equations – a view that later Hempel and Oppenheim generalized and called the D-N (deductive–nomological) model of explanation (reprinted in [1]). Here the (widely accepted, as it seems) corresponding conception of causality will, for simplicity, be called the law-centered theory of causality . But does the latter theory subsume, at least within physics, all the meanings of the word ‘cause’ that true understanding calls for? Among philosophers the matter is not settled. Hempel himself granted that in several respects the D-N model is somehow inadequate for analyzing the cause–effect relationship [2]. And it seems indeed that a significant argument favoring a ‘no’ answer to the question might have been put forward as early as 1907 (although, to our knowledge, it was not), when Einstein pointed out that according to his then two years old special relativity (SR) theory, if we assumed an effect could follow its cause sooner than light velocity permits, then in some other frames of reference it would occur before its cause. For, concerning this consequence of the assumption, he wrote, “in my opinion, regarded as pure logic … it contains no contradiction; however it absolutely clashes with the character of our total experience, and in this way is proved the impossibility of the hypothesis” [3].
The work analyzes the compatibility between the classical freedom, the local relativistic causality and the non-local behavior of quantum mechanics in the frame of the stochastic approach of the quantum hydrodynamic analogy (SQHA). The work describes the role of the quantum potential in generating the quantum non-local dynamics in a fluctuating environment. The analysis shows that it is possible to maintain the concept of classical freedom between far away weakly bounded systems (moderate non-locality) as well as to make compatible the uncertainty principle with the relativistic postulate of invariance of light speed. The work shows that the paradox of instantaneous quantum non local behavior at infinite distances of the standard formalism is an artifact due to the non-relativistic non-stochastic ambit of such theory where the light speed is infinite and the non-local interaction owns an infinite range of action. The work envisages that the SQHA can possibly lead to a fully theoretically self-standing quantum mechanics where the wave function collapse, during a measurement process, can be described by the theory itself without empirical postulates. Under this light the paper discusses the need of searching for (both local and non-local) hidden variables quantum mechanics as well as the need of superluminal communications in quantum experiments. The analysis shows that all these hypotheses are attempts of interpreting the outputs of quantum measurements that cannot be fully explained by the semi-empirical formalism of quantum mechanics, based on the statistical postulates of the measuring process as well as the existence of a classical observer. A two photon experiment is discussed to the light of the SQHA approach. Key words: Quantum non-locality, superluminal transmission of quantum information, classical freedom, local relativistic causality, Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) paradox, macroscopic quantum decoherence, Bell’s inequalities, quantum hydrodynamic analogy.
The origin and elaboration of our fundamental theories like quantum theory, the theory of relativity and the quantum field theories can be traced to the study of light and its properties. While developing these theories, several notions on the behaviour of light have been hypothesized as well as asserted, sometimes without any direct or compelling empirical evidence. In the context of quantum physics, there is a widespread belief that experiments on quantum correlations establish nonlocality as an essential aspect of nature. Another unshakable belief without direct empirical support is the absolute constancy of the speed of light relative to moving observers. In this paper, I argue that no experiment on quantum correlations of spatially separated photons necessitates the concept of nonlocality, and that there is no direct empirical proof of nonlocality. I also comment on the need to modify established notions on quantum light, in the context of a clear conflict between cosmology and the zero point energy of quantum electrodynamics. Then I describe the first experiments on the measurement of the true one-way speed light relative to a reference platform that is in inertial motion. The results are at variance with the belief that the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the observer.