Quantum mechanics permits nonlocality---both nonlocal correlations and nonlocal equations of motion---while respecting relativistic causality. Is quantum mechanics the unique theory that reconciles nonlocality and causality? We consider two models, going beyond quantum mechanics, of nonlocality---``superquantum" correlations, and nonlocal ``jamming" of correlations---and derive new results for the jamming model. In one space dimension, jamming allows reversal of the sequence of cause and effect; in higher dimensions, however, effect never precedes cause.
Quantum mechanics permits nonlocality---both nonlocal correlations and nonlocal equations of motion---while respecting relativistic causality. Is quantum mechanics the unique theory that reconciles nonlocality and causality? We consider two models, going beyond quantum mechanics, of nonlocality---superquantum" correlations, and nonlocal jamming" of correlations---and derive new results for the jamming model. In one space dimension, jamming allows reversal of the sequence of cause and effect; in higher dimensions, however, effect never precedes cause.
Quantum mechanics and relativistic causality together imply nonlocality: nonlocal correlations (that violate the CHSH inequality) and nonlocal equations of motion (the Aharonov-Bohm effect). Can we invert the logical order? We consider a conjecture that nonlocality and relativistic causality together imply quantum mechanics. We show that correlations preserving relativistic causality can violate the CHSH inequality more strongly than quantum correlations. Also, we describe nonlocal equations of motion, preserving relativistic causality, that do not arise in quantum mechanics. In these nonlocal equations of motion, an experimenter ``jams" nonlocal correlations between quantum systems.
We present a possible scheme to tamper with nonlocal quantum correlations in a way that is consistent with relativistic causality, but goes beyond quantum mechanics. A nonlocal ``jamming'' mechanism, operating within a certain space-time window, would not violate relativistic causality and would not lead to self-contradictory causal loops. The results presented in this paper do not depend on any model of how quantum correlations arise and apply to any jamming mechanism. \textcopyright{} 1996 The American Physical Society.
The axioms of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics lack clear physical meaning. In particular, they say nothing about nonlocality. Yet quantum mechanics is not only nonlocal, it is twice nonlocal: there are nonlocal quantum correlations, and there is the Aharonov-Bohm effect, which implies that an electric or magnetic field h e r e may act on an electron t h e r e. Can we invert the logical hierarchy? That is, can we adopt nonlocality as an axiom for quantum mechanics and derive quantum mechanics from this axiom and an additional axiom of causality? Three versions of these two axioms lead to three different theories, characterized by "maximal nonlocal correlations", "jamming" and "modular energy". Where is quantum mechanics in these theories?
This preprint clarifies a persistent category error in the interpretation of quantum mechanics and relativity by explicitly distinguishing propagation from correlation. Relativistic constraints, including the finite speed of light, apply to the transmission of energy, matter, and information through spacetime. Quantum mechanics, by contrast, permits nonlocal correlations between entangled systems that do not involve transmission, motion, or signal propagation. The apparent instantaneity of quantum effects therefore reflects the revelation of pre-existing correlation structure rather than superluminal dynamics. By maintaining this separation, the preprint shows that the finite speed of light and quantum nonlocality are not in conflict. Light is limited in speed because it propagates; quantum correlations have no speed because nothing propagates. This framing resolves common misconceptions surrounding entanglement, nonlocality, and causality without introducing hidden structures, preferred frames, or violations of relativistic invariance. The work is intended as a conceptual clarification and falsifiable interpretive framework, not a modification of quantum theory or relativity. Keywords quantum correlation nonlocality entanglement speed of light relativity causality non-signaling propagation vs correlation foundations of quantum mechanics conceptual clarification
For Abner Shimony. Your influence on me goes well beyond physics. Knowing you and being close to you is one of the greatest privileges and pleasures in my life. Introduction Quantum mechanics is, without any doubt, a tremendously successful theory: it started by explaining black-body radiation and the photoelectric effect, it explained the spectra of atoms, and then went on to explain chemical bonds, the structure of atoms and of the atomic nucleus, the properties of crystals and the elementary particles, and a myriad of other phenomena. Yet it is safe to say that we still lack a deep understanding of quantum mechanics – surprising and even puzzling new effects continue to be discovered with regularity. That we are surprised and puzzled is the best sign that we still don't understand; however, the veil over the mysteries of quantum mechanics is starting to lift a little. One of the strangest things microscopic particles do is to follow non-local dynamics and to yield non-local correlations. That particles follow non-local equations of motion was discovered by Aharonov and Bohm, while non-local correlations – which are the subject of this chapter – were discovered by John Bell and first cast in a form that has physical meaning, i.e., that can be experimentally tested, by Clauser, Horne, Shimony, and Holt. When they were discovered, both phenomena seemed to be quite exotic and at the fringe of quantum mechanics. By now we understand that they are some of the most important aspects of quantummechanical behavior.
Introduction Fifty years after the publication of Bell's theorem, there remains some controversy regarding what the theorem is telling us about quantum mechanics, and what the experimental violations of Bell inequalities are telling us about the world. This chapter represents my best attempt to be clear about what I think the lessons are. In brief: There is some sort of nonlocality inherent in any quantum theory, and, moreover, in any theory that reproduces, even approximately, the quantum probabilities for the outcomes of experiments. But not all forms of nonlocality are the same; there is a distinction to be made between action at a distance and other forms of nonlocality, and I will argue that the nonlocality needed to violate the Bell inequalities need not involve action at a distance. Furthermore, the distinction between forms of nonlocality makes a difference when it comes to compatibility with relativistic causal structure. The Bell locality condition is a condition which, if satisfied, renders possible a completely local account of the correlations between outcomes of spatially separated experiments. Bell's theorem tells us that the probabilities that we compute from quantum mechanics do not admit of such an account. Modulo auxiliary assumptions that, in my opinion, should be noncontroversial, this yields the conclusion that there must be something nonlocal about any theory that yields the quantum mechanical probabilities or anything close to them. One way to violate the Bell locality condition – and this is the way that any deterministic theory must do it – is via straightforward action at a distance. However, we should also consider the possibility of a stochastic theorywith probabilistic laws that involve irreducible correlations. The sort of nonlocality inherent in such a theory involves relations between events that are significantly different from causal relations as usually conceived. Perhaps surprisingly, such a theory, unlike its deterministic cousins, need not invoke a distinguished relation of distant simultaneity. This makes a difference for the situation of the two sorts of theories vis-a-vis relativity. Though a deterministic theory can achieve the appearance of being relativistic, at the level of observable phenomena, it can do so only by introducing a preferred foliation and with it a causal structure at odds with relativistic causal structures. Things are otherwise with dynamical collapse theories.