Synthese

, Volume 192, Issue 1, pp 221–240 | Cite as

Re-thinking local causality

Article

Abstract

There is widespread belief in a tension between quantum theory and special relativity, motivated by the idea that quantum theory violates J. S. Bell’s criterion of local causality, which is meant to implement the causal structure of relativistic space-time. This paper argues that if one takes the essential intuitive idea behind local causality to be that probabilities in a locally causal theory depend only on what occurs in the backward light cone and if one regards objective probability as what imposes constraints on rational credence along the lines of David Lewis’ Principal Principle, then one arrives at the view that whether or not Bell’s criterion holds is irrelevant for whether or not local causality holds. The assumptions on which this argument rests are highlighted, and those that may seem controversial are motivated.

Keywords

Quantum theory Special relativity Causality Probability  Principal Principle 

References

  1. Albert, D. Z., & Galchen, R. (2009). Was Einstein wrong?: A quantum threat to special relativity. Scientific American, 2009, 32–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bell, J. S. (2004). Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Butterfield, J. N. (2007). Stochastic Einstein locality revisited. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 58, 805–867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cavalcanti, E. G. (2010). Causation, decision theory, and Bell’s theorem: a quantum analogue of the Newcomb problem. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 61, 359–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cusbert, J. (2013). The Arrow of Chance, PhD thesis, submitted at The Australian National University.Google Scholar
  6. Eberhard, P. H. (1978). Bell’s theorem and the different concepts of locality. Nuovo Cimento, 46B, 392–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Friederich, S. (2011). How to spell out the epistemic conception of quantum states. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 42, 149–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Friederich, S. (2013). In defence of non-ontic accounts of quantum states. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 44, 77–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Friederich, S. (2014). Interpreting Quantum Theory: A Therapeutic Approach. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  10. Gell-Mann, M., Goldberger, M. L., & Thirring, W. E. (1954). Use of causality conditions in quantum theory. Physical Review, 95, 1612–1627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ghirardi, G. C., Rimini, A., & Weber, T. (1980). A general argument against superluminal transmission through the quantum mechanical measurement process. Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, 27, 293–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gisin, N. (2009). Quantum nonlocality: How does nature do it? Science, 326, 1357–1358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goldstein, S., Norsen, T., Tausk, D. V., & Zanghi, N. (2011). Bell’s theorem. Scholarpedia, 6, 8378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Haag, R. (1993). Local Quantum Physics (corrected ed.). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Hall, N. (1994). Correcting the guide to objective chance. Mind, 103, 505–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hall, N. (2004). Two mistakes about credence and chance. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 82, 93–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Healey, R. A. (2012). Quantum theory: a pragmatist approach. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 63, 729–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Healey, R. A. (2014). Causality and chance in relativistic quantum field theories, Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics. doi:10.1016/j.shpsb.2014.03.002.
  19. Jarrett, J. (1984). On the physical significance of the locality conditions in the Bell arguments. Nous, 18, 569–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lewis, D. (1986 [1980]). A subjectivists’s guide to objective chance. In Philosophical papers, (Vol. II, pp. 83–132). New York: Oxford University Press (originally published from Studies in inductive logic and probability, Vol. II by, R. C. Jeffrey Ed., Berkeley: University of California Press.)Google Scholar
  21. Lewis, D. (1994). Humean supervenience debugged. Mind, 103, 473–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Maudlin, T. (2011). Quantum Theory and Relativity Theory: Metaphysical Intimations of Modern Physics (3rd ed.). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  23. Myrvold, W. C. (2003). Relativistic quantum becoming. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 54, 475–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Näger, P. (2013). A stronger Bell argument for quantum non-locality, http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/9932/
  25. Norsen, T. (2009). Local causality and completeness: Bell vs. Jarrett. Foundations of Physics, 39, 273–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Norsen, T. (2011). Bell’s concept of local causality. American Journal of Physics, 79, 1261–1275.Google Scholar
  27. Price, H. (1996). Time’s Arrow and Archimedes’ Point: New Directions for the Physics of Time. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Seevinck, M. P. (2010). Can quantum theory and special relativity peacefully coexist?, available at arXiv:1010.3714
  29. Seevinck, M. P., & Uffink, J. (2011). Not throwing out the baby with the bathwater: Bell’s condition of local causality mathematically ‘sharp and clean’. In D. Dieks, W. J. Gonzalez, S. Hartmann, Th Uebel, & M. Weber (Eds.), Explanation, Rediction and Confirmation. New Trends and Old Ones Reconsidered (pp. 425–450). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shimony, A. (1978). Metaphysical problems in the foundations of quantum mechanics. International Philosophical Quarterly, 18, 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shimony, A. (2004). Bell’s theorem. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2012 Edition) plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/Bell-theorem.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Philosophy, University of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations