Quantum nonlocality may be an artifact of the assumption that observers obey the laws of classical mechanics, while observed systems obey quantum mechanics. I show that, at least in the case of Bell's Theorem, locality is restored if observed and observer are both assumed to obey quantum mechanics, as in the Many-Worlds Interpretation. Using the MWI, I shall show that the apparently "non-local" expectation value for the product of the spins of two widely separated particles --- the "quantum" part of Bell's Theorem --- is really due to a series of three purely local measurements. Thus, experiments confirming "nonlocality" are actually confirming the MWI.
Quantum nonlocality may be an artifact of the assumption that observers obey the laws of classical mechanics, while observed systems obey quantum mechanics. I show that, at least in the case of Bell's Theorem, locality is restored if observed and observer are both assumed to obey quantum mechanics, as in the Many-Worlds Interpretation. Using the MWI, I shall show that the apparently "non-local" expectation value for the product of the spins of two widely separated particles --- the "quantum" part of Bell's Theorem --- is really due to a series of three purely local measurements. Thus, experiments confirming "nonlocality" are actually confirming the MWI.
Quantum nonlocality is shown to be an artifact of the Copenhagen interpretation, in which each observed quantity has exactly one value at any instant. In reality, all physical systems obey quantum mechanics, which obeys no such rule. Locality is restored if observed and observer are both assumed to obey quantum mechanics, as in the many-worlds interpretation (MWI). Using the MWI, I show that the quantum side of Bell's inequality, generally believed nonlocal, is really due to a series of three measurements (not two as in the standard, oversimplified analysis), all three of which have only local effects. Thus, experiments confirming "nonlocality" are actually confirming the MWI. The mistaken interpretation of nonlocality experiments depends crucially on a question-begging version of the Born interpretation, which makes sense only in "collapse" versions of quantum theory, about the meaning of the modulus of the wave function, so I use the interpretation based on the MWI, namely that the wave function is a world density amplitude, not a probability amplitude. This view allows the Born interpretation to be derived directly from the Schrödinger equation, by applying the Schrödinger equation to both the observed and the observer.
Fundamental principle of classical physics -- local realism, means that freely chosen observations can be explained by a local (slower than light) real process. It is apparently violated in quantum mechanics as shown by Bell theorem. Despite extreme efforts experiments have not conclusively confirmed this violation due to loopholes. We propose a new postulate that the description of quantum processes must be consistent with local realism, It also assumes existence of many worlds/copies of the same system, interacting weakly microscopically but strongly macroscopically, whose number can be estimated experimentally.Bell theorem will never address a real experiment because its assumptions cannot be strictly fulfilled. By an appropriate generalization of quantum framework and measurement postulates, in particular taking into account freedom of choice, local realism agrees with quantum mechanics and the performed experiments, also involving single qubit coherence and a weaker version of the Bell test, Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen steering.
We argue that quantum nonlocality of entangled states is not an actual phenomenon. It appears in quantum mechanics as a consequence of the inconsistency of its superposition principle with the corpuscular properties of a quantum particle. In the existing form, this principle does not distinguish between macroscopically distinct states of a particle and their superpositions: it implies introducing observables for a particle, even if it is in an entangled state. However, a particle cannot take part simultaneously in two or more alternative macroscopically distinct sub-processes. Thus, calculating the expectation values of the one-particle's observables, for entangled states, is physically meaningless: Born's formula is not applicable to such states. The same concerns the entangled states of compound quantum systems. In the {\it existing} quantum mechanics, introducing Bell's inequalities is fully legal. However, these inequalities imply averaging over an entangled state, and, hence, they have no basis for their clear physical interpretation. Experiments to confirm the violation of Bell's inequalities do not prove the existence of nonlocality in microcosm. They confirm only that correlations introduced in the existing theory of entangled states have no physical sense, for they contradict special relativity.
Bell's theorem is 50 years old. Still there is a controversy about its implications. Much of it has its roots in confusion regarding the premises from which the theorem can be derived. Some claim that a derivation of Bell's inequalities requires just locality assumption, and nothing more. Violations of the inequalities are then interpreted as ``nonlocality'' or ``quantum nonlocality''. We show that such claims are unfounded and that every derivation of Bell's inequalities requires a premise -- in addition to locality and freedom of choice -- which is either assumed tacitly, or unconsciously, or is embedded in a single compound condition (like Bell's ``local causality''). The premise is equivalent to the assumption of existence of additional variables which do not appear in the quantum formalism (in form of determinism, or joint probability for outcomes of all conceivable measurements, or ``additional causes`'', or ``hidden variables'', ``complete description of the state'' or counterfactual definiteness, etc.). A certain irony is that perhaps the main message of violation of Bell's inequalities is that our notion of locality should be based on an operationally well-defined no-signalling condition, rather than on local causality.
This paper discusses a possible resolution of the nonobjectivity-nonlocality dilemma in quantum mechanics in 'the light of experimental tests of the Bell inequality for two entangled photons and a Bell-like inequality for a single neutron. My conclusion is that these experiments show that quantum mechanics is nonobjective: that is, the values of physical observables cannot be assigned to a system before measurement. Bell's assumption of nonlocality has to be rejected as having no direct experimental confirmation, at least thus far. I also consider the relationships between nonobjectivity and contextuality. Specifically, I analyze the impact of the Kochen-Specker theorem on the problem of contextuality of quantum observables. I argue that, just as von Neumann's "no-go" theorem, the Kochen-Specker theorem is based on assumptions that do not correspond to the real physical situation. Finally, I present a theory of measurement based on a classical, purely wave model (pre-quantum classical statistical field theory), a model that reproduces quantum probabilities. In this model continuous fields are transformed into discrete clicks of detectors. While this model is classical, it is nonobjective. In this case, nonobjectivity is the result of the dependence of experimental outcomes on the context of measurement, in accordance with Bohr's view.
n their contribution to this book, McQueen and Vaidman argue that common sense requires that explanations in physics be not only causal1 but also local. Their main claim is that the Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics (originally due to Everett) provides local explanations of the outcomes of experiments that in other interpretations of quantum mechanics seem to require (some sort of) nonlocality. Particles in the MWI leave traces both in the world where they exist but also in other worlds in which they do not exist. So the explanation is said to be local because spacetime splits together with the particles so that there is no influence at space-like separation within a world, but the causal influence literally travels across ‘parallel’ worlds. This seems to stretch the concept of locality beyond common sense, if not beyond breaking point, even if one understands causation weakly in terms of counterfactual dependence rather than by straightforward physical interaction.