Abstract
The Western philosophical thought has learnt since its very early days that the idea that there is a world out there – a world whose properties are (at least partially) independent from what we might think of them and even from our very attempts to have access to them – has a peculiar status. Although for some the idea of a world out there is too obviously right in order to waste time to argue in favour of it, whereas for others it is too obviously wrong in order to waste time to try to refute it, most philosophers would agree that a more or less sophisticated array of arguments is needed in order to make realism (or anti-realism, or any variant that lies in the continuum between these two poles) a plausible position. This long and honoured story, however, seems to be forgotten when considered from the standpoint of the foundations of contemporary physics. Surprisingly enough, the world-out-there-idea has recently acquired to the eyes of many physicists and philosophers of physics the status of a pathology, to be recognized as such and to be eradicated as soon as possible.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
- 2.
In the literature on the Bell theorem and local realism, it is common to find the expressions ‘local hidden variables theories’ and ‘local realistic theories’ treated as synonymous, and this is why the above quotation is relevant for my argument. Clearly, equating such expressions is debatable, but the explanation of why might be the subject of another paper.
- 3.
An ‘objective’ account would be an account in which we can distinguish ‘reality’ from ‘knowledge of reality’, even though such account should indeed be able to describe suitably the very processes by which we gain knowledge of reality. For an instructive sample of quotations on the centrality of ‘local realism’ see Norsen (2007), pp. 312–314, and Laudisa (2008), pp. 1113–1115.
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
See for instance the discussion of exactly how the pre-existent locations of particle determine the outcomes of ‘spin measurements’ in Albert (1992).
References
Albert, D. 1992. Quantum mechanics and experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ansmann, M., H. Wang, R.C. Bialczak, M. Hofheinz, E. Lucero, M. Neeley, A.D. O’Connell, D. Sank, M. Weides, J. Wenner, A.N. Cleland, and J.M. Martinis. 2009. Violation of Bell’s inequality in Josephson phase qubits. Nature 461: 504–506.
Aspelmeyer, M., and A. Zeilinger. 2008. A quantum renaissance. Physics World (July issue) 21: 22–28.
Bell, J.S. 1964. On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. Physics 1: 195–200.
Bell, J.S. 1971. Introduction to the hidden-variable question. In Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, ed. B. D’Espagnat, 171–181. New York and London: Academic Press.
Bell, J.S. 1981. Bertlmann’s socks and the nature of reality. Journal de Physique 42: 41–61 (reprinted in Bell (2004): 139–158).
Bell, J.S. 2004. Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blaylock, G. 2010. The EPR paradox, Bell’s inequality, and the question of locality. American Journal of Physics 78: 111–120.
Brukner, C., and A. Zeilinger. 2009. Information Invariance and Quantum Probabilities, Foundations of Physics 39: 677–689.
Brukner, C., and M. Žukowski M. forthcoming. Bell’s inequalities: Foundations and quantum communication. In Handbook of natural computing, eds. G. Rozenberg, G. Baeck, T.H.W. Kok, and N. Joost. Berlin: Springer.
Clauser, J.F., and M.A. Horne. 1974. Experimental consequences of objective local theories, Physical Review D10: 526–535.
Clauser, J.F., M.A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R.A. Holt. 1969. Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theories. Physical Review Letters 23: 880–884.
Dürr, D., S. Goldstein, and N. Zanghì. 2004. Quantum equilibrium and the role of operators as observables in quantum theory. Journal of Statistical Physics 116: 959–1055.
Fine, A. 1986. The Shaky game. Einstein realism and the quantum theory. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Fuchs, C.A., and A. Peres. 2002. Quantum theory needs no ‘interpretation’. Physics Today 53: 70–71.
Ghirardi, G.C. 2009. The interpretation of quantum mechanics: Where do we stand? Journal of Physics, Conf. Ser. 174: 012013.
Ghirardi, G.C., and R. Grassi. 1994. Outcome predictions and property attribution: The EPR argument reconsidered. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 25: 397–423.
Goldstein, S. 2001. Bohmian mechanics. In Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, ed. E.N. Zalta. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm
Gröblacher, S., T. Paterek, R. Kaltenbaek, C. Brukner, M. Žukowski, M. Aspelmeyer, and A. Zeilinger. 2007. An experimental test of non-local realism. Nature 446: 871–875.
Laudisa, F. 2008. Non-local realistic theories and the scope of the Bell theorem. Foundations of Physics 38: 1110–1132.
Leggett, A. 2003. Nonlocal hidden-variable theories and quantum mechanics: An incompatibility theorem. Foundations of Physics 33: 1469–1493.
Leggett, A. 2008. Realism and the physical world. Reports on Progress in Physics 71: 1–6.
Maudlin, T. 1996. Space-time in the quantum world. In Bohmian mechanics and quantum theory: An appraisal, eds. J. Cushing, A. Fine, and S. Goldstein, 285–307. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Maudlin, T. 2010. What Bell proved: A reply to Blaylock. American Journal of Physics 78: 121–125.
Norsen, T. 2007. Against ‘realism’. Foundations of Physics 37: 311–340.
Pawlowski, M., and C. Brukner. 2009. Monogamy of Bell’s inequality violations in nonsignaling theories. Physical Review Letters 102: 030403.
Peres, A., and D. Terno. 2004. Quantum information and relativity theory. Review of Modern Physics 76: 93–123.
Weihs, G. 2007. The truth about reality. Nature 445: 723–724.
Zeilinger, A. 2005. The message of the quantum. Nature 438: 743.
Žukowski, M. 2005. On the paradoxical book of bell. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 36: 566–575.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this paper
Cite this paper
Laudisa, F. (2012). The Uninvited Guest: ‘Local Realism’ and the Bell Theorem. In: de Regt, H., Hartmann, S., Okasha, S. (eds) EPSA Philosophy of Science: Amsterdam 2009. The European Philosophy of Science Association Proceedings, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2404-4_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2404-4_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-2403-7
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-2404-4
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)