Foundations of Physics

, Volume 13, Issue 5, pp 481–499 | Cite as

Nonlocality and the Kochen-Specker paradox

  • Peter Heywood
  • Michael L. G. Redhead
Article

Abstract

A new proof of the impossibility of reconciling realism and locality in quantum mechanics is given. Unlike proofs based on Bell's inequality, the present work makes minimal and transparent use of probability theory and proceeds by demonstrating a Kochen-Specker type of paradox based on the value assignments to the spin components of two spatially separated spin-1 systems in the singlet state of their total spin. An essential part of the argument is to distinguish carefully two commonly confused types of contextuality; we call them ontological and environmental contextuality. These in turn are associated with two quite distinct senses of nonlocality. We indicate the relevance of our treatment to other related discussions in recent literature on the philosophy of quantum mechanics.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    S. Kochen and E. P. Specker,J. Math. Mech. 17, 59 (1967).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. S. Bell,Physics 1, 195 (1964).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. Stairs,PhD Thesis, University of Western Ontario, 1978.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Fine,Synthese 29, 257 (1974).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. Fine,Synthese 42, 145 (1979).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    P. Teller,Phil. Sci. 44, 475 (1977).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. M. Gleason,J. Math. Mech. 6, 885 (1957).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. S. Bell,Rev. Mod. Phys. 38, 447 (1966).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. Fine and P. Teller,Found. Phys. 8, 629 (1978).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. L. G. Redhead,Phil. Sci. 48, 50 (1981).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    B. C. van Fraassen, inContemporary Research in the Foundations and Philosophy of Quantum Theory, C. A. Hooker, ed. (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1973), p. 80.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    M. J. Maczynski,Rep. Math. Phys. 2, 135 (1971).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    W. Demopoulos, inStudies in the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, P. Suppes, ed. (PSA, East Lansing, 1980), p. 119.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    P. Humphreys, inStudies in the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, P. Suppes, ed. (PSA, East Lansing, 1980), p. 145.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. Bub, inStudies in the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, P. Suppes, ed. (PSA, East Lansing, 1980), p. 149.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    P. Heywood,Studies in the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, P. Suppes, ed. (PSA, East Lansing, 1980);Brit. J. Phil. of Sci. (to appear).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    J. Bub,Found. Phys. 6, 511 (1976).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    J. Clauser and A. Shimony,Rep. Prog. Phys. 41, 1881 (1978).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    M. L. G. Redhead, “Causality, Relativity and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox,” inSpace, Time and Causality, R. Swinburne, ed. (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1983), p. 151.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    B. C. van Fraassen,Synthese 42, 155 (1979).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    A. Fine,Phil. Sci. 44, 95 (1977).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Heywood
    • 1
  • Michael L. G. Redhead
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of History and Philosophy of Science, Chelsea CollegeUniversity of LondonLondonEngland

Personalised recommendations